Sitting of 14 May 1970

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Violence (Research)
    1. Dr. Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to collate the university research which he has sponsored into the causes of violence.
    34. Mr. Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research projects he has initiated with regard to the causes of violence; and to what extent he takes into account the findings of similar studies carried out in other countries.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): There is close contact between my officials and the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, which is carrying out the programme of study of violence which I announced on 16th December last. This includes a survey of research on violence, which will take account of research in other countries; a descriptive and statistical survey of crimes of violence; and a study of aggressive behaviour by boys in their teens.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will my right hon. Friend publish the results of this research, as it is as important to under-
    1424
    stand the causes and prevention of violence as it is to punish those responsible?
    Mr. Callaghan: A great deal of the value would be lost unless there was publication when the research was completed.
    Mr. Moonman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many research workers in this subject recognise what he has done to try to calm down the agitation which has been built up, often by the Opposition? Is it not clear that this is an international social problem? Does he agree that the work done in the E.E.C. is also worth considering?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. I hope to carry this into international relations. There will be a conference in The Hague later this month of European Ministers of Justice which will afford an opportunity for discussion of this matter.
    14. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research is being done into the relationship between the consumption of alcohol and the increasing incidence of crimes of violence.
    Mr. Callaghan: This will be given consideration in the programme of research conducted with Government support at the Cambridge Institute of Criminology.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say why this research has not been done before, and will he ask the Opposition, in view of their well known influence with the brewers, to ask them to contribute to this research rather than to a losing political party?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am afraid I cannot answer the first point, but in reply to the second I agree that the brewers are well represented in the top 10 contributors to the Conservative Party. They share that privilege with the merchant banks, I believe. In my other capacity, if I may be allowed a short "commercial", I am very willing to accept contributions from either.

    Home Safety (Fire Precautions)
    2. Mr. Robert Howarthasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has studied United States practices of fire precautions in the home, details

    1425
    of which were sent to him by the hon. Member for Bolton, East, on 9th April; and if he will incorporate proposals covering homes in his forthcoming legislation to rationalise the law relating to fire precautions.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): The legislation which my right hon. Friend proposes to introduce to strengthen and rationalise the law relating to fire precautions will cover certain types of living accommodation, but not dwelling houses in general. I have written to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Howarth: Does not my hon. Friend feel that the answer to the problem is publicity which will convince people of the dangers of fire in the home and the simple precautions they can take? What does he propose to do to step up the publicity?
    Mr. Morgan: I believe that both legislation and publicity have a part to play. As my hon. Friend was told on 24th April, publicity about fire prevention in the home is undertaken by the Home Office, the fire authorities, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, fire protection associations and other organisations.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman apply himself to the cause of umerable fires in the home—the overturning of obsolescent, mobile, outworn and outdated oil burners, particularly involving the death of children, and the use of electrical equipment which is often 30 or 40 years old and ought to have been scrapped many years ago?
    Mr. Morgan: For once in my life, I do not dissent substantially from what the hon. Gentleman says.
    3. Mr. Robert Howarthasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate a publicity campaign to draw attention to existing cheap and effective automatic fire alarms suitable for use in the home with a view to reducing the loss of life, particularly among young children, through fires in the home.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: My right hon. Friend would not wish to discourage the use of alarms of the type which I under-
    1426
    stand my hon. Friend has in mind; but they have a number of limitations and he would not feel justified in recommending their general use.
    Mr. Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are small alarms, many of them costing about 30s. each, which, if they were in wide use, would help prevent many of the tragic deaths so common in the middle of winter? Will he reconsider his answer?
    Mr. Morgan: I am aware of this aspect, but the House should appreciate that most of the deaths in fire in the home are due to the effects of smoke and toxic products of combustion. Automatic fire alarms are most effective if activated by smoke, but many of the cheaper automatic alarms are activated not by smoke but by heat.
    Mr. Lane: Arising from a previous reply given by the hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is aware that there is growing concern at the non-appearance yet of the promised legislation? Why the delay?
    Mr. Morgan: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to await a statement on that matter.

    Committee on Privacy
    4. Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to enable the proposed committee on Privacy under the Chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Younger to investigate the intrusion on privacy by firms advertising their products by means of the telephone.
    Mr. Callaghan: I will draw the Committee's attention to this matter. If my hon. Friend has any relevant information, I shall be glad if he will make it available to the Committee.
    Mr. Shaw: I am much obliged for that reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware of this growing practice, particularly in my constituency? Would he not agree that this could cause a good deal of inconvenience and resentment among those at the wrong end of the telephone?
    Mr. Callaghan: I have made certain inquiries into the matter. As far as I am aware it is not a widespread practice

    1427
    as yet and I certainly hope, for the sake of all of us, that it does not grow.
    7. Sir L. Healdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the terms of reference of the Committee on Privacy have been confined to intrusions on privacy by private persons and organisations, or by companies, thereby debarring the Committee from considering intrusions by servants of the Crown or of public bodies such as the British Broadcasting Corporation; and whether he will amend the terms of reference so as to avoid such discrimination.
    Mr. Callaghan: Civil servants act under the direction of Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament. There is no similar accountability by private persons and organisations.
    As regards news gathering and publication by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority, I am assured that these organisations will co-operate with the Committee.
    Sir L. Heald: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the limitation of these terms of reference to intrusions by private, as opposed to public, bodies or their servants is contrary to Magna Carta and constitutes yet another step on the slippery slope to the Socialist State?
    Mr. Callaghan: That is a very odd way of putting it, considering that the origin of this committee of inquiry lay in the Bill introduced by one of my hon. Friends aimed at extending the right of privacy of individuals. I remember that on the occasion of the debate the right hon. and learned Member gave vent to the sentiment that in his constituency the biggest invasion of privacy was regarded as aircraft noise.
    Mr. Hogg: Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point in his original answer? When he said that the television authorities will co-operate with the committee did he mean to indicate that their activities will now be within the terms of reference of the committee?
    Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that terms of reference were drawn so that those organisations are strictly within
    1428
    the scope of them. As I have reported to the House—if I did not I do it now—1 saw the chairmen of both authorities and both readily agreed that in connection with what I call their news-gathering and dissemination and publication activities they would expect to co-operate with the committee.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I asked the Prime Minister about the work of the Younger Committee he said specifically that it would look into computers and their possible intrusion upon privacy? If Government service computers are exempted from the inquiry will not the work of the Younger Committee be a meaningless travesty?
    Mr. Callaghan: None of that was said during the course of the Friday debate when the whole accent was on the invasion of privacy by private individuals and firms. It is well known and understood that the entry by Government officials into private premises or by gas and the electricity inspectors, or the interception of communications, is all governed by Statute or well laid-down practice. As to computers, the Prime Minister said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) that he was considering in what way a code of conduct could be worked out.

    Sporting Events (Hire of Police)
    5. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed increases in charges for the hiring of police for sporting events.
    Mr. Callaghan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on 12th May.—[Vol. 801, c. 264–51
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I cannot recall that answer readily? Nevertheless, will he give an assurance that the cricketing authorities will bear the full cost of the increased police protection which the cricket grounds are likely to need when the South African team is engaged in games behind barbed wire?
    Mr. Callaghan: This is a matter between chief constables. the police

    1429
    authorities in the various areas and the cricketing authorities themselves. I have no doubt that they will make appropriate arrangements.

    South African Cricket Tour
    6. Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations have been made to him regarding demonstrations in connection with the South African cricket tour in Great Britain.
    Mr. Callaghan: About 250 letters have been received from individuals and organisations on the subject of the South African tour.
    Mr. Winnick: Although I realise that we shall be debating this subject later, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would agree that for the M.C.C. to hire so-called vigilantes is both wrong and an incitement to violence? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many of us would like the tour called off as quickly as possible if, nevertheless, the South Africans come over we believe that there should be peaceful demonstrations and that there can be no excuse for violence from either side? As a dedicated anti apartheid demonstrator and campaigner I would not wish to associate myself in any way with violence.
    Mr. Callaghan: What the M.C.C. does in this matter is of concern to the police in so far as it might provoke a breach of the peace. That is the responsibility of the police in all these matters. I certainly echo my hon. Friend's sentiments about violence. We will all have to bear in mind that there will be a certain number of hooligans who exist in every city and who will want to take advantage of what is intended to be the peaceful protest.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Despite what the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend has said, has the Home Secretary noted the statement of Mr. Peter Haine about the success he claims to have achieved so far for his movement being due to the introduction of direct action? Will the Home Office take careful note of this gentleman's activities and statements and movements to make sure that he acts within the law?
    Mr. Callaghan: As long as everyone acts within the law there will be no need for anyone to take note of their active-
    1430
    ties. I hope that will go both for the hooligans on the Left and anyone on the Right who wants to stir up trouble. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the possibility that there may be a tiny, fractional organisation on the Right which would attempt to make disturbances.
    25. Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has now made of the additional cost to public funds of providing police surveillance of the South African touring cricket team this year.
    Mr. Callaghan: It is too early to make an estimate.
    Mr. Hooky: Would my right hon. Friend say what justification there is in paying anything at all from public funds to enable this tour to take place since it is offensive to our laws and to millions of people in this country?
    Mr. Callaghan: I would not want—nor I am sure would my hon. Friend—individuals who come to this country to be personally harassed and embarrassed if a little police protection could prevent physical intimidation of that sort. I would not want to suggest that they should be left without the normal protection and courtesy afforded to all visitors to this country.

    General Election (Counting of Votes)
    9. Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, following his circular to returning officers on the matter, he will ascertain how many returning officers of cities, county boroughs and boroughs, who have previously had their count following a General Election on the same night, propose to follow this practice in the next General Election.
    Mr. Callaghan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to a Question by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) on 7th May.—[Vol. 801, c. 170.]
    Mr. Tilney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because in some boroughs and county boroughs returning officers will have an extra hour's checking of counterfoils, several are thinking of not starting until the following day? Will he

    1431
    call their attention to the effect that this will have on the trade and industry of the country, on the hotel industry and also on television programmes?
    Mr. Callaghan: As regards television, some of the scenes that I have seen when television invades the returning officer's sanctum would lead to many people feeling glad if the cameras stayed outside. As to the other institutions, I do not think it will have a catastrophic effect.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by extending polling hours till 10 o'clock he has greatly widened democracy, by making it possible, or much easier, for shift workers and those on overtime to vote? As some of them are not aware of this, could he make it widely known so that no one misses the chance to vote?
    Mr. Callaghan: With respect, it was not my decision; it was a decision of the House but I am very ready to take credit for it. The changing of practice in relation to hours of work, the shift system and night work means that the new hours are much more convenient to a number of people.

    Nuclear Weapons (Civil Defence)
    10. Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to protect people in this country from the consequences of nuclear retaliation following the implementation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation policy of nuclear response to conventional attack.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to a Question by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) on 12th February.—[Vol. 795, c. 379–80.]
    Mr. Jenkins: While that answer is completely clear in my mind, in every particular and word, may I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not the case that, having abandoned any attempt to protect the civil population against nuclear war by virtually standing down civil defence, the logical consequence of that step is for ourselves to abandon the use of nuclear weapons on the ground that to use a weapon against which we are
    1432
    unable to defend ourselves is sheer irresponsibility?
    Mr. Morgan: I do not want to get involved in discussions on defence strategy. In the care and maintenance policy announced in January, 1968, the main requirements for the protection of the public have been retained.

    CS Gas
    11. Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to fresh evidence on the effects of CS gas used in Belfast, details of which have been sent to him, he will ban the use of this weapon until the Himsworth Committee has reported.
    Mr. Callaghan: No.
    Mr. Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that answer? Is not the proper course to ensure that no human being should be subject to any noxious process until its effects are fully known and medically examined? In these circumstances, will he at least not suspend the use of this gas until the Himsworth Committee has reported?
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. Being concerned with the welfare of every human being, I include in that the British Army and those soldiers who are having to withstand a great deal of attack and abuse.
    Mr. McMaster: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that all possible steps are taken to avoid the use of CS gas except in the most extreme circumstances, in view of the serious effect on quite innocent people living in the area where it is used? Will he instead endeavour to arrest as many of the rioters as possible and bring them before the courts as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Callaghan: This question has been answered before and the G.O.C. needs no reminder from me or the hon. Gentleman that he should use this weapon only in extreme circumstances where the alternative is something that the House would generally regard as worse. He must be supported in his decision to use it.

    West Midlands Police Force (Equipment)
    12. Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

    1433
    if he will obtain a report from the chief constable on the proposals he has for improving the number of vehicles and other mechanical aids to crime detection in use by the West Midlands Police Force and how present levels compare with those in use in 1963–64.
    Mr. Elysian Morgan: At present 289 vehicles and 510 personal radios are available; the comparable figures in 1964 were 158 and 8. The chief constable intends to maintain this improved standard.
    Mrs. Short: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, but is he aware that there is concern in the West Midlands force about undermanning? Nevertheless, the figures show that this Government have shown much more concern for the detection and tracking down of crime and criminals than the Opposition when they were in power, and this makes their recent conversion to law and order look pretty thin.

    Police Drug Squad (Strength)
    13. Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present strength of the drug squad in London; and what proposals he has to aid recruitment of more officers in the immediate future.
    Mr. Callaghan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 12th February to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler).—[Vol. 795, c. 375–6.]
    Mrs. Short: As my right hon. Friend is concerned with a Bill to deal with the tracking down and punishment of pushers of drugs, does not he think that the drug squad needs augmentation? Does not he also agree that, to establish the right relationship with those who are treating drug addicts, drug squad officers shoud stay in post much longer, and that there should be less moving around and more opportunities for promotion within the drug squad?
    Mr. Callaghan: The short answer is that this matter should always be kept under review, but not only the drug squad is concerned with this social problem. All the 20,000 officers in Greater London have the same powers of arrest in connection with drug offenders as the
    1434
    drug squad. The drug squad is a small specialised group which is particularly concerned with tracking down pushers, and at present the Commissioner is satisfied that the squad is organised in the way which is likely to get the best results.

    Prisons (Suicides)
    17. Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the suicide rates in prisons.
    Mr. Elysian Morgan: Over the past five years the annual number of suicides in prison service establishments in England and Wales has varied between 11 and 21. A careful examination is made of the circumstances behind each suicide or attempted suicide and additional precautions are taken wherever experience shows that they are necessary or likely to be effective.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is the Minister aware that the Annual Report of the Prisons Department expressed deep concern about the number of suicides and attempted suicides in prison, and what is his Department doing to provide psychiatric help to people who need it?
    Mr. Morgan: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that, first, the highest priority is given to identifying the potential suicide. If there is any risk he is removed to the prison hospital. Secondly regulations provide for the removal of any clothing which might be of use in a suicide attempt. Thirdly, careful study is given to each case with a view to reviewing the whole system in the light of the facts which emerge from such inquiry.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the incidence of suicide attempts is higher in remand homes where people are in a more disturbed state? I mention particularly the Risley remand home, near Warrington. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that every precaution is taken, particularly with people who have previously attempted to commit suicide?
    Morgan: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the danger in remand homes, and I give him the assurance which he seeks. I understand that my right hon. Friend has already visited the remand home which he mentioned.

    National Police Force
    18. Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to set up a national police force following the Government's proposals for local government reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.
    20. Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to establish a national police force.
    Mr. Callaghan: I have no plans to establish a national police force. The reasons for not doing so were set out in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police in 1962.
    Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be general satisfaction with that reply? Is he also aware that the Police Federation recently opposed the setting up of such a force, with all the dangers of remote leadership? Will he confirm that it is his intention to maintain an element of local democracy in our citizens' affairs, particularly in areas such as Lancashire and Cheshire where some element of reorganisation will be required by the Redcliffe-Maud proposals?
    Mr. Callaghan: I saw a recent revival of this proposal, but I do not believe that it has much support although it came from a very distinguished quarter. The present composition of the police authorities ensures a great deal of local representation, and I do not see that under any proposed reorganisation it should be any less.
    Mr. Davidson: I agree with my right hon. Friend in not wanting to establish a national police force, but will he look at the possibility of setting up a national fraud squad in view of the complex and lengthy nature of inquiries into frauds?
    Mr. Callaghan: I have not bent my mind to that problem, but I will certainly look into it if my hon. Friend tells me that there is a need for some review.
    Mr. Hogg: For the uniformed police force would not it be best to let the new amalgamations settle down fully before embarking on new and radical courses?
    Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, not for the first time, has expressed my own view on this matter.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is there not already a national police service, in the sense that the police wear the same uniform, are subject to the same conditions and are always available for mutual aid? Will the Home Secretary give an assurance that he will consult police opinion before he puts forward precise suggestions for implementing the Redcliffe-Maud Report?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, there would naturally need to be substantial consultations before any consequential changes arising out of the Redcliffe-Maud Report were made. It is important that the forces should be allowed to settle down under the existing amalgamations for as long as possible.

    Vandalism
    19. Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to permit the imposition of financial penalties upon the parents of children who have committed persistent acts of vandalism involving damage to public and private property.
    Mr. Callaghan: Where proceedings are taken in respect of children under 17, the courts can already bind over their parents in a sum of money, and order the parents to pay any fine or compensation imposed.
    Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us have the greatest admiration for the constructive work being done, notably by his Department, in tackling the problem of children in trouble? Does he not agree that further ways must be found to establish parental responsibility and to tell parents bluntly that if they continue to pass the buck to the State they may find themselves passing more than a buck to the courts?
    Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend expresses a generally-held opinion on this matter, and that is why I am ready to draw attention to the existing court powers. Whether the courts use them is a matter for the courts rather than for me.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does the Home Secretary agree that the existing powers to which he has referred were both carried as a result of Amendments pressed from this side of the House and were not in the Government's original proposals?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, that is absolutely true. The hon. Gentleman needs some consolation on a day like this.

    Miss Ira Brant
    21. Sir T. Brintonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Miss Ira Brant of Kidderminster, who was committed to a Bristol approved school in order to discourage a harmful association with a married man although she herself had committed no offence, is being permitted to correspond with him and to receive a visit from him with the assistance of the responsible authorities.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: This is a matter for the managers of the school. I understand that it is their view that to forbid correspondence would not help Miss Brant towards a resolution of her problems. One visit was allowed at Christmas, and this took place in the presence of her foster-mother and a representative of the managers.
    Sir T. Brinton: Is the Minister aware that, at the time this girl who had committed no offence was sent to approved school, there was widespread national concern that the reason for sending her there was to prevent a most undesirable association with a married man, and that the authorities have now permitted that association to continue and even, as the Minister has said, encouraged it? Does he think this is a just way to deal with the matter, and will he ensure that in future people are not sent to approved schools for this reason unless it will do some good in solving the problem?
    Morgan: Miss Ira Brant was sent to that school by a court. The House will appreciate that it would not be appropriate to attempt to generalise about how far letters and/or visits in such cases as this can help a girl to get over a damaging relationship. This must be for the managers to decide in each case in the light of individual circumstances.

    Police Service
    23. Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement on his plans to improve the position of the police service.
    Mr. Callaghan: Strengthening of police performance is a continuing process and I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 16th April.—[Vol. 799, c. 265.]
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Home Secretary recall that the Police Federation has declared that the morale in the police force is lower today than it has been for many years? What does he intend to do about it? Does he agree with the statement by the federation that the right hon. Gentleman has been metamorphosed by his office from a pioneering trail-blazer into a bland and cooing Whitehall dove?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am flattered by any public reference whether favourable or unfavourable. I thought it would be as well to look at what was happening in the hon. Gentleman's area because I should like to help him to correct any misapprehension. I am glad to say that the number of crimes known to the police in 1969 was rather fewer than in 1964; that the crimes detected by the police were much greater in 1969 than in 1964; that the number of motor vehicles has pretty well trebled; that the amount of scientific and wireless equipment in terms of expenditure is about eight times as much; and that the number of personal radios has increased from three to 425. Therefore, I should like to return to my original statement that the strengthening of police performance is a continuing process.
    Mr. Rose: Would my right hon. Friend accept that on this side of the House there would be strong support for a highly paid and well-qualified police force? Would he accept my congratulations on the improved rate of recruitment to the police force and the improved methods of detection, and would he assure the police force that the interim payment which
    they have received is only

    1439
    a foretaste of something even better to come?
    Mr. Callaghan: The whole question of recruitment to the police is a joint responsibility. It is shared jointly between police authorities, which have substantial responsibility and therefore should take credit, and the Home Office which always gets the discredit in these matters. That is how it should be. On the matter of pay, I have never wavered in my view that the appropriate standard for the police service should be that laid down by the Willink Commission. But I dare say there will be argument in detail as to what Willink means translated into 1970 terms. That is where the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) will come into his own.

    Bridge Clubs
    24. Sir H. Lucas-Toothasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has given further consideration to the position of small bridge clubs; and if he will now take steps to mitigate the effect upon them of the recent legislation.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: I have nothing at present to add to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) on 5th February.—[Vol. 795, c. 181–2.]
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these clubs are in no way anti-social or gambling establishments, that they have great difficulty in complying with the law as at present enforced, and that the delay is causing many elderly and not very wealthy people great anxiety and hardship?
    Mr. Morgan: My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider the matter sympathetically, but before legislation can be considered it is necessary to ascertain the exact extent of the problem. The English Bridge Union has collated information from its members and expects to be able to submit a report to the Home Office in about two weeks' time.
    Mr. Hogg: Is it not possible that a mistake has been made? When I play bridge it is a game of chance, but when other people play bridge may it not be a game of skill?
    Mr. Morgan: I will not comment on the subjective point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was intended that bridge should fall within the scope of the Act. There is no doubt that bridge generally is a game of chance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am advised that different conditions obtain in regard to duplicate bridge.

    Criminal Courts (Sentences)
    26. Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now take steps to strengthen the powers of the criminal courts in respect of sentence.
    Mr. Callaghan: This matter is kept under review, particularly in the light of any recommendations made by the various advisory bodies considering different aspects of the powers of the courts. Recent Statutes have increased the maximum penalty which the courts may impose for a number of offences.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the Home Secretary disturbed by the recent comments by the Lord Chief Justice, vividly corroborated as they have been in one respect by the observations of the convicted double murderer in the Adamson case? If he is not disturbed about this matter, is he aware that he is the only person in the country who is not?
    Mr. Callaghan: What the right hon. Gentleman is putting in his supplementary question has nothing to do with the original Question, because the powers of the courts in all these matters have been amply demonstrated as they were in the recent decision taken by the judge who tried the case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. As for the other comments of the Lord Chief Justice, I do not see that it is seemly for him and me to have a disagreement. On the other hand, in relation to a national police force, his observations clearly did not meet with any support at all. As for his other proposals, I was able to demonstrate that he and I were in agreement as on almost every occasion.
    Mr. Fernyhough: But would not the Home Secretary agree that, if longer sentences are to be imposed, it will be necessary to spend much more money on new prisons than we are spending at present?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, it will. There is a big modernisation programme going on at present. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already told us that one of his election slogans will be, "Build more prisons". I am not sure that will mean that he will get more of them.
    Mr. Carlisle: Surely the Home Secretary takes seriously the comments of the Lord Chief Justice about the iniquity of any form of mandatory sentencing. Will he consider reviewing the matter of mandatory powers so far as they affect the suspending of sentences in magistrates' courts?
    Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman well knows that the matter of mandatory sentences has already been referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee. This problem will be considered by that
    committee and I have no doubt its report will be presented in due course. As for the general observations of the Lord Chief Justice, I have no desire to disagree with him when I think he is right.
    Mr. Ogden: Does the Home Secretary agree that the powers of magistrates are already very great if they wish to use them, but, as the majority of magistrates and judges are Conservatives, why should they complain to this Government for not using the powers which the Government have given them?
    Mr. Callaghan: I ought not to comment on the last part of the question. It is true that the Theft Act, 1968, substantially modernises the law on theft and increases some penalties. The Firearms Act, 1968, created new offences and heavy penalties for unlawful carrying of firearms, and increased the maximum penalties for many existing firearms offences. There are many other examples I could give. If the hon. Gentleman is in earnest on this matter, he should direct his mind not to the inadequacy of the powers which exist, but to the use that is made of them.
    Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate even more categorically the statement which came from the back benches behind him about the political character of the judiciary, both the lay judiciary, which is very carefully selected so as not to exhibit this characteristic, and the professional judiciary, of which I can say from my own knowledge that it is wholly false?
    Callaghan: The House is aware of the basis of selection of the magistracy and of the higher judiciary. There is nothing that I can say which will add to or detract from the qualifications of those who serve on the bench.

    Au Pair Girls
    27. Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now introduce legislation to regulate the conditions of employment for au pair girls.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: The welfare of au pair girls is the subject of the Council of Europe's Agreement on Au Pair Placement and I cannot at present add to my hon. Friend's reply on 16th April to a Question by my hon. Friend, the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett).—[Vol. 799, c. 271.]
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is it not high time that the Home Office recognised au pair work as legitimate employment, and that agencies providing au pairs, which at the moment escape regulation, deserve to come under regulation, just as the au pair and her employer also deserve a legally binding contract?
    Mr. Morgan: It is not the same question as employment. If it were, it would be a matter for the Department of Employment and Productivity. The European agreement specifies the conditions which apply to
    an au pair arrangement as regards board and lodging, time for cultural improvement, days off and pocket money, and the services that the person placed au pair shall render in return. Whether or not the United Kingdom becomes a signatory to the European Agreement on Au Pair Placement, it is intended to introduce in this country a standard form of agreement between the au pair girl and the family which receives her.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Why do not the Government confirm this agreement? Cannot we go ahead in this important project?
    Mr. Morgan: The question of confirmation is now under study. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be prepared to await the result of that study.

    Francis McGuigan (Death)
    28. Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will

    1443
    institute an inquiry into the death of Francis McGuigan, aged two years, in Belfast on 7th August, 1969, in view of the fact that he was affected by CS gas used by British troops on the night of 3rd April, 1969.
    Mr. Callaghan: This little boy died on 7th April, 1970.
    I understand that the coroner has not decided whether an inquest should be held.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that responsible medical opinion and many other people in this country are very disturbed about the use of this weapon? Will he do something to speed up the definitive report of the Himsworth Committee on this matter?
    Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend is discussing the question of the use of CS gas in Northern Ireland, and it is not a subject which any of us would wish to dismiss lightly. I do not think that any deductions can be made from the death of this little boy as yet. As regards the Himsworth Committee's Report, I cannot expect that before the end of the year.
    Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very large number of complaints arising from the use of CS gas, particularly as it effects people with bronchial and chest troubles? Will he take all the steps that he can to see that the powers of arrest of the Army in conjunction with the police are used, as they are a less inflammatory alternative to the use of the gas?
    Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman constantly makes false allegations that the Army uses CS gas in a manner which is less than discriminatory. That is not so. It is used only when there are no alternatives.

    INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Q1. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made in Oban to the Scottish Trades Union Congress on Wednesday, 22nd April on industrial relations.
    Q5. Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the
    1444
    Library a copy of his public speech to the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 22nd April on the subject of industrial relations.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): As I said in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) on 24th April, I did so, Sir, on 23rd April.—[Vol. 800, c. 165.]
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not clear that the recent newspaper dispute would not have been solved by the Opposition's plan for industrial relations? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Tory plan, reaffirmed yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, amounts to legal restrictions and shackles on the trade unions which would bring Britain near to industrial civil war?
    The Prime Minister: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, certainly what is put forward by the Conservative Party would not have averted a newspaper strike. So far from that, the action taken by Mr. Feather and the T.U.C. would not have been possible except under the Downing Street agreement of last year.
    As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I have not yet had an opportunity to read the right hon. Gentleman's speech, though I hope to do so.
    Mr. Davidson: If my right hon. Friend feels disposed to read that speech at some stage, is he aware that he will detect in it a shifting of emphasis on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and that, if he felt disposed to read it again, he would possibly also detect in it a recognition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that the legal enforcement of collective agreements is not and never has been a panacea for the improvement of industrial relations?
    The Prime Minister: Not having read it, it is difficult for me to say what I would detect in it if I read it. But on what was trumpeted in the headlines on the front page of every newspaper a few weeks ago and last year—namely, the enforceability of agreements—it is now clear that the Conservative position seems to be that these are enforceable, provided—[Interruption.] I will satisfy hon. Gentlemen completely in a moment.

    1445
    For 13 years nothing was done. I am about to say what we have done. While the Conservative position is that these are enforceable unless one side disagrees, our position in the Bill now before Parliament is that these are enforceable if both sides agree. If anyone apart from a Conservative lawyer can find a real difference there, he is better than I am.
    Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister tell the House how many strikes there were in the first three months of this year compared with last year and compared with 1968?
    The Prime Minister: The House has already been given the figures, and I have also given the figures for the past five years, compared with the higher figures in the last five years of the period of office of the party opposite. Even when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Ministry of Labour, they were higher than they have been in the last five years. The answer is, as confirmed by a Conservative newspaper, that they are two million man days less than they would have been but for Mr. Feather.
    Mr. Heath: If the Prime Minister has the information, will he now answer my question?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The figure is 2·126 million, if that is the figure that the right hon. Gentleman needs, man days lost through strikes. The number of strikes was 1,134—Unterruptionl-1,134—[Interruption.]—1,134—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on with Questions quietly.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must not be so hysterical. I have just given the figure for which I was asked.
    Hon. Members: No.
    The Prime Minister: The number of strikes, I have just said three times, was 1,134.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: And the year before?
    The Prime Minister: I should be glad to give the figures for the year before. I will also be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman the figures which show higher figures in the Tories' last five years
    1446
    than under us—[Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can afford the irresponsibility of opposition, and they will have many more years to get used to it. But if we are concerned with what I said at Oban, I said then that the right hon. Gentleman's policy, by claiming to solve the strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have just answered the question—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The right hon. Gentlemen's policy is a specific for more strikes.
    Mr. Heath: May I offer to help the right hon. Gentleman? There were 1,134 strikes in the first three months of this year, 718 last year, and 512 the year before. The Government have abdicated all power of responsibility in the face of those figures.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the figures that he has so diligently dug out. I am sure that the House, as he would wish, will ponder them.
    I will now answer the last part of his question, though it sounded more like an assertion. The distinguished speech which he made yesterday, together with the no doubt less distinguished speech that I made yesterday—[Interruption.]
    An Hon. Member: Wait for it.
    The Prime Minister:—would not have been there for any of us to read today in the newspapers if it had not been for the intervention of Mr. Feather. Conservative policies could not have stopped that strike. Mr. Feather could not have intervened against the background of Conservative policies. He would not have had power to intervene except for what was conceded in the Downing Street talks last year. The right hon. Gentleman can ask Mr. Feather if he wishes. After all, he settled that strike, where the right hon. Gentleman's system would not have done.
    I conclude with this answer—
    Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order. Surely this is Question Time, not speech time?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a question, not a point of order.
    Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order. Is there nothing that you can do, Mr. Speaker, to restrain the graceless

    1447
    reiteration of the Leader of the Opposition and also to comfort the poor miserable berks on the other side of the House?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is very little that I can do at the moment.
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman's question was not a question but an assertion, I conclude briefly that, in addition to the fact that his speech and mine could not have been reported, the Conservative Press, which has so faithfully supported him on strikes and now knows where the facts really lie, would not have been in production today, and some would not have survived.
    Dr. Winstanley: Does the Prime Minister agree that, while strikes and absence from work are desperately serious matters, what people do when they are at work is also relevant to the economy? In this connection, when he is next giving advice to the Conservative Front Bench on this topic, would he care to remind them that there are at present no strikes in Czechoslovakia, but that Czechoslovakian productivity is the lowest in Europe?
    Mr. Shinwell: Referring to the settlement of the newspaper strike, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is true that, since publication of the public opinion polls in the newspapers, the Tory Opposition no longer believe what they read in the newspapers?
    Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Has the Prime Minister heard the rumour—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—then I shall inform him—that the country wishes to return to yesterday's men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yesterday's prices, yesterday's taxes and yesterday's unemploment situation? Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday's men never devalued and never fiddled by boundary rigging?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The original Question is about Oban and the Trades Union Congress.
    Mr. Archer: On a point of order. I apologise, Mr. Speaker. But the expression "yesterday's men" was used by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech. It was the first time that that expression was used.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not bring the hon. Gentleman's question into this Question.
    The Prime Minister: Since the question was put, I must say that I have not heard any such rumour, or any rumour that the people of this country want to return to yesterday's deficit either. For myself, I just feel saddened that a once great party has nothing left to feed on but rumours.

    ROAD SAFETY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
    Q2. Mr. Roseasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister for road safety with sole responsibility for co-ordinating the measures for cutting down the numbers of road accidents.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Under my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, one of his Joint Parliamentary Secretaries, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown), already has special responsibility for road safety.
    Mr. Rose: While congratulating the Government on the road safety legislation which has saved many lives, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will remember and bear in mind that for every person murdered in this country, 40 people are killed on the roads? Will he bear in mind also that the World Health Organisation has said that in advanced countries one in 50 children born today will be killed on the roads? Will he therefore give urgent priority to the idea of appointing a Minister whose only responsibility will be to save lives in this respect?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that no one will be complacent about the present toll of lives on the roads, but it is a fact, as my hon. Friend says, that there has been a big improvement. If the rate of growth of road casualties in the period 1960–64 had continued, we could have expected an increase of about 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. between 1964 and 1969.
    Mr. lain Macleod: The Prime Minister need not bring that into politics.
    The Prime Minister: Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have brought a lot of people's deaths into their propaganda.

    1449
    At the expected rate, there would have been 30,000 more casualties. In fact, in 1969, instead of 30,000 more, there were 30,000 fewer casualties, that is, 60,000 casualties less against the trend[Interruption.]—I have a right to quote these figures to the right hon. Gentleman, because a great part of this was due to the courage of my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Transport for introducing the breathalyser. That has saved thousands of lives, and it is right that it should be said.
    Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members on this side of the House distinctly heard the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) call the Prime Minister a swine. I submit that that is unparliamentary language, and that you should ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark.
    Hon. Members: Name him.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help a point of order at all. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman use that word, but, if he did call the Prime Minister a swine, he will withdraw it.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I always say frankly what I did say. I used that word. I thought it unforgivable to bring children's deaths into a political argument and to make capital out of it. If the word be out of order, Mr. Speaker, you know my deference to you and to the Chair and of course I withdraw it.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn it.
    Mr. Bessell—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bessell.
    Mr. Rose: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I asked the Question originally, would you accept that the saving of children's lives is an issue, and a very important one, for many young mothers in this country, and should not bring anger to those who supported the alcoholic lobby against my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order at all.
    Mr. Bessell: While recognising the great improvement in the number of road
    1450
    casualties, for which the Prime Minister is quite correct in taking credit on behalf of his right hon. Friend, may I ask whether, in view of this continuing slaughter on the roads, he agrees that the kind of propaganda policy adopted during holiday periods might be extended throughout the year to impress on people the need for care?
    The Prime Minister: I began my reply by saying that there was no ground for complacency by anyone in this matter, and all the time we must be vigilant in seeing whether some of these restrictions which have helped to reduce road casualties should be tightened up, and in what fair way they can be tightened up.
    My impression of publicity at holiday times is that, valuable though it is, and
    highlighted though the holiday figures inevitably and right are, they are no higher on the average than the day-to-day toll during the rest of the year. For that reason I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and what he said about holiday times needs to be said all the year round.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
43. Sir D. RENTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose further steps for reducing the net inflow of immigrants under the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts and the Aliens Order.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): In the first quarter of this year 6,728 Commonwealth citizens were admitted for settlement, compared with 10,118 in the first quarter of 1969, and 13,539 in the first quarter of 1968.
The figures are the lowest since statistics were first collected in 1962. They show a reduction of 33½ per cent. on 1969, and of 50 per cent. on 1968. The rate of immigration is now under effective control.
I do not expect any marked increase in these modest figures for Commonwealth citizens. Nor are further steps required to control immigration by aliens.
Sir D. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my Question also refers to the net inflow of aliens. Does he recollect that last week he gave me figures which showed that in 1969 there was a net inflow of 26,000 aliens, which was 20,000 more than in 1968. Is this considerable increase in the net inflow of aliens justifiable while we have so many unemployed?
Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that those two facts are relevant. The number of aliens coming in and moving out varies very much from year to year. It has been between 15,000 and 20,000 in most recent years, but there are hundreds of thousands who arrive, and hundreds of thousands who depart. The net result at the end of a day increases the population of this country by an insignificant figure.
Mr. Hooky: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to have another look at the special hardship being caused to British citizens in East Africa who hold United Kingdom passports?
Mr. Callaghan: Not to increase the total number coming into this country. I have said many times that I am prepared to look at any scheme which would result in additions from one area, provided that there was an equivalent reduction elsewhere.
Mr. Thorpe: As the net inflow is controlled, and the Home Secretary has announced that it has reduced, it means that the quota is not fully taken up. Surely, on humanitarian grounds, we should look again urgently at the position of British citizens of Asian descent in East Africa, many of whom are destitute and virtually Stateless?
Mr. Callaghan: I do not believe that the two things go together. According to my information, more than 50 per cent. of those now in Kenya have lived there for relatively short periods, and were born in India. There would be nothing to prevent them from returning to India if they wished to do so, if they are suffering in the way suggested. There is some hardship there, but, on the general point, I believe very firmly that the reason why we have taken a lot of the heat out of
1452
the immigration problem is that the country knows that the figures are under firm control, and I should not wish to be a party to increasing the total immigration at this stage.
Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm my understanding of his original Answer, which was that his figures relate to individuals, and not to heads of families? Will he again consider the possibility, to which he was at one time sympathetic, of introducing legislation to bring into harmony the two separate codes relating to these two classes of individuals?
Mr. Callaghan: There are big differences between aliens and Commonwealth citizens, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and I fear that I could not give an undertaking this afternoon to introduce legislation.
Mr. Hogg: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the first part of my question? I asked whether his figures related to individuals or heads of families.
Mr. Callaghan: Individuals.
Dr. Gray: Will my right hon. Friend consider allotting some of the vouchers that are not taken up to the East African Asian holders of British passports and at last do them some elementary justice?
Mr. Callaghan: I would not be willing to do that, because it would increase the total number coming into this country.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: If the right hon. Gentleman has any difficulties about doing anything in respect of East African Asians, could he get the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to make representations to the Governments of Kenya and Uganda to pursue more liberal and less discriminatory policies in regard to those people, who, in the main, have a very substantial contribution to make to the economies of those countries?
Mr. Callaghan: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend, but the process of Africanisation has been long announced by the Governments of the countries concerned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: Would the Leader of the House please give us some indication of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business after the Whitsun adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY, 1ST JUNE—Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill and of the Republic of The Gambia Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Bill.
TUESDAY, 2ND JUNE—Further Progress on the Committee stage of the Finance, Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 3RD JUNE, and THURSDAY, 4TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill.
FRIDAY, 5TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] and of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Republic of The Gambia Bill [Lords].
MONDAY, 8TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Gas Bill and of the Industrial Training Bill.
Motion on the National Insurance (Occupational Pensioners) (Unemployment Benefit) Regulations.
Mr. Roebuck: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to my Motion No. 243?
[That, in view of the reduction of one per cent. in Bank Rate in recent weeks, this House calls upon the building societies to make an appropriate reduction in mortgage interest rates.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that when my hon. Friends and I return triumphantly from the hustings we shall expect him to arrange a debate so that we can put the building societies in the dock on this issue?
Mr. Peart: I have noted my hon. Friend's Motion, and I am sure that the building societies, also, will have noted it.
Mr. Thorpe: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman's list of business is definite, or is it subject to minor change, or to total change without notice?
Mr. Peart: I have announced the business, and that is what it will be if we come back.
Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend now tell us when the House will rise for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Peart: Not next week.

BROADCASTING SERVICES (INQUIRY)
The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. John Stonehouse): With permission, I would like to make a statement.
As the House will recall, I said in the debate on 3rd December last year that I was considering an inquiry into the long-term future of broadcasting after 1976, when the present mandates of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. expire.
There are important technical developments taking place in the field of broadcasting and of communications generally which may have fundamental implications for broadcasting in the later 1970s and it is necessary that these, as well as the existing broadcasting arrangements, should be examined before Parliament and the Government have to take decisions about the arrangements that should apply from 1976.
The Government have, therefore, decided to set up an independent committee of inquiry to carry out a wide-ranging review of the future of sound and television broadcasting. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is making a statement. The House must listen to it.
Mr. Stonehouse: The terms of reference are:
"To consider the future, after 31st July, 1976, of the broadcasting services in the United Kingdom, of the dissemination by wire of broadcast and other programmes and of television for public showing; to consider the implications for present or any recommended additional services of new techniques, for example, for recording visual programmes for

1455
reproduction; and to propose what constitutional, organisational and financial arrangements and what conditions should apply to the conduct of all these services".
I have invited the noble Lord, Lord Annan, to be Chairman of the Committee, and I am glad to inform the House that he has consented.
I shall announce the names of the other members of the Committee as soon as possible.
Mr. Bryan: While I accept that a number of technical developments are on the way, may I ask what knowledge the right hon. Gentleman expects to gain from an inquiry into the whole field of broadcasting which is not already available to the Government without an inquiry and all that that involves?
Second, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the low morale among the creative and executive staff in broadcasting is largely due to the fact that I.T.V. and the B.B.C., during recent years, have already been over-investigated, over-reorganised and over-restructured? Why is he hurrying to appoint a committee of inquiry before a General Election, when there are still six years before the B.B.C. and I.T.V. mandates run out?
Mr. Stonehouse: I do not think that we are yet fully aware of all the technical developments that may be generally accepted in a few years' time. The pace of change is considerable. I have had an advisory group of scientists and electronic engineers advising me on the subject for some months, and I am satisfied that the change in the technological environment for broadcasting may be so considerable that the whole function of the broadcasting institutions in Britain as we have known them may have to change. That is why a committee of inquiry which can take into account the wider social implication of these changes is essential.
I do not accept that there is low morale in the broadcasting institutions. The quality of our broadcasting is second to none in the world, and we want it to continue in that way.
The fact that there has been such a great deal of public controversy about the B.B.C.'s proposals in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" for sound broadcasting, when it was alleged that there was not sufficient time for consideration of its proposals, indicates that we must now
1456
give sufficient time for the inquiry to go ahead and for the public and Parliament to consider it after the report is made. As Lord Pilkington said, the last inquiry did not have sufficient time. We have decided that this inquiry should have sufficient time, and that is why the committee is being appointed now.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of businesss ahead. Questions and Answers should be brief.
Mr. Golding: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are very grateful to him for instituting an inquiry into the technical aspects of broadcasting, an inquiry demanded by the T.U.C. and the Post Office Engineering Union? May we hope that consideration will be given to the possibility of handing over the technical aspects of broadcasting to the Post Office, where they truly belong?
Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful for that expression of support. I know that the country generally will welcome the fact that the uncertainty about a committee of inquiry has now been dispelled. Of course, the committee will be able to consider any representations made to it.
Dr. Winstanley: I welcome the setting up of the committee of inquiry as a necessary step for the long-term future of broadcasting after July, 1976. But does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it cannot of itself do anything to remove the very deep anxieties both within and outside the B.B.C., nor will it do anything to remove the present state of financial dependence of the B.B.C. on the Government, which is a threat to the freedom of broadcasting?
Mr. Stonehouse: I do not accept that there is in the B.B.C. the degree of low morale which is being suggested. I think that the morale in the B.B.C. is very good. The controversy which
surrounded "Broadcasting in the Seventies" has now largely subsided. It is now generally accepted that the B.B.C. is doing a first-rate job.
The committee of inquiry will not be concerned with short-term problems, but about the situation after 1976. All those who are concerned with broadcasting, including those in the B.B.C., will be anxious to make a contribution to that

1457
long-term consideration which is so fundamental.
Mr. Wyatt: Will the inquiry be able to consider the advisability of setting up a Broadcasting Council on the lines of the Press Council, to which the public can make complaints if they are not satisfied about the impartiality of B.B.C. or I.T.A. programmes?
Mr. Stonehouse: I know that my hon. Friend has put this idea forward on several occasions, and I am sure that, if he were to submit it to the committee of inquiry, it would consider it. I have put no reins on the committee's considerations, so this would certainly be one of the subjects which it could consider.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: If this inquiry was to be set up, would it not have been far more sensible to set it up before the damage was done to the B.B.C.? Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether the chairman will be Lord Arran or Lord Annan? If the latter, will he undertake to see, so that some impartiality is preserved, that Dr. Leavis is also a member?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not refer discourteously to a Member of another place.
Mr. Stonehouse: I do not accept that there is now undue controversy in the B.B.C., and I do not believe that an earlier announcement of the establishment of this committee of inquiry would in itself have changed the controversy which has raged for the last year about sound broadcasting in the B.B.C.
I made clear in my statement that it is Lord Annan who is being appointed. I cannot yet announce the other members of the committee.
Mr. Fred Evans: Although I generally welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask to what extent the particular interests of Wales will be covered by the inquiry?
Mr. Stonehouse: I am very anxious, as I am sure the chairman of the committee will be, that it shall take into account not only the interests of Wales, but those of Northern Ireland and Scotland as well.
1458
I will ensure that a member is appointed from Wales to help to represent the concerns of the Welsh.
Mr. Mawby: If the main function of this committee, as I understand it to be. is to look into the technological future, why not have a technologist as chairman? If, on the other hand, it is to look into the whole question of the social impact upon society of broadcasting as a whole, would the right hon. Gentleman take very close account of the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt)?
Could the committee be called upon to consider the very vexed question whether there should be a council on on the same basis as the Press Council, even if only as a long-stop, to protect society from this method of communication?
Mr. Stonehouse: As I said, the committee will be able to consider any of these points which are put to it. But I am concerned that the full technological changes, which will certainly be vital in
the next few years, should be considered by the committee. I also have leading technologists advising me on this very aspect and I will ensure that this advice is made available to the committee. It would have been wrong if it concentrated purely on the changes in technology. What we have to ensure is that the full social and political impact of these changes is considered by a wide-ranging and widely-drawn committee.
Dr. Miller: Would my right hon. Friend accept that this inquiry is welcome? But will he confirm that, in addition to looking into technological aspects, the committee will also consider the policy of broadcasting, both in sound and in television? Would he confirm that there will be a Scottish representative on the committee? I am sure that he must recognise that national interests could be looked after if broadcasts came from Scotland as well as from any other part of the country?
Mr. Stonehouse: I am glad to confirm that all the policy issues will be considered by the committee if it wishes to do so. I am also pleased to confirm that I will be making an appointment from Scotland, so the special concerns of that part of the United Kingdom can be kept in mind.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since the period within which the committee will be examining the impact of technology on television and sound broadcasting is probably the next decade, and since, within that decade, the virtually complete monopoly which national States have exercised over broadcasting to their nationals is likely to disappear as a result of direct satellite television broadcasting, would the Minister specifically include this subject in the terms of reference of the committee?
Mr. Stonehouse: The committee, and indeed Ministers, can be concerned only about activities which lie within their jurisdiction. I am very glad to take up this point, because it is an extremely valuable one, which we have very much in mind. This is one of the new technological developments which will certainly undermine, in time, the quasi-monopoly in broadcasting in Britain at this time.
Mr. Faulds: Would my right hon. Friend accept—I should like to put it to him with the greatest possible courtesy and warmth—that he is wrong when he says that the internal concern in the B.B.C. has died down? If he believes this, would he ask for a report of last Sunday's meeting of the 76 Group with some of the leading B.B.C. figures?
Mr. Stonehouse: Generally speaking, the correspondence which the B.B.C. and 1 have been receiving in recent weeks confirms that there is now very little outside concern about the impact of the B.B.C. programme changes. Indeed, there has been wide acceptance that these were a change for the good. We should not become embroiled in this, in considering the wide-ranging future of broadcasting from 1976 onwards. We should not be concerned about temporary disputes which may exist within one of the institutions to which we are referring.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: On a point of order. I did not hear it absolutely clearly, Mr. Speaker, but I understood you to allege
1460
that I had been discourteous to either one of two members of another place whom I mentioned. With the greatest possible respect, nothing that I said relating to either of those peers could possibly be construed, if you heard me aright, as discourteous. I should be grateful if you would clarify your Ruling.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I saw the distress he showed when I made my Ruling. If I misheard him, I at once apologise to him.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. As you know, Mr. Speaker, so far as anyone in the House is representative of those who work in television broadcasting, it is myself—
Mr. Faulds: Hey, hey, hey!
Mr. Jenkins:—it is myself—would you be so good as to tell me, either publicly or privately, why I am so consistently unsuccessful in catching your eye?
Mr. Speaker: I have never noticed that the hon. Gentleman is singularly unsuccessful in catching Mr. Speaker's eye, but he cannot catch it every time.

HOUSEBUILDERS' INSURANCE
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop, supported by Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. John Wells, Mr. Julian Ridsdale, Mr. Evelyn King, Mr. J. C. Jennings, presented a Bill to make it an offence to sell a dwelling-house in advance of the vendor completing the construction of the said dwelling-house and of the works specified in the contract to be undertaken in connection therewith, unless the vendor shall have entered into a contract of insurance with an authorised underwriter, or otherwise secured by a method approved by the Minister the indemnification of the purchaser against failure by the vendor to perform the contract due to the vendor's bankruptcy or insolvency: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12th June and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

SOUTH AFRICAN CRICKET TOUR
Mr. Speaker: Before the debate begins, may I announce to the House that this debate will last exactly three hours and that I already have the names of 30 hon. and right hon. Members who wish to take part? I would urgently appeal for speeches to be brief.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
It is surely right that the House should discuss the burning topic of the South African cricket tour, which has aroused such grave anxiety throughout this country and throughout the Commonwealth. So I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for accepting my application under Standing Order No. 9 yesterday and I thank hon. and right hon. Members, including the Government, for their support.
I start by discussing the Cricket Council's action, first, in terms of sport. I have some personal knowledge of the kind of problems which the council faces. I have taken part in international games. I have organised big international matches and international tours. I have always held that sport is above
politics. If it is above politics that is because it has ethics of its own. If those ethics are not observed, it may need action from outside the world of sport to put things right.
The essential fact of the situation is that which I mentioned yesterday, the action of the South African Prime Minister 18 months ago. I recall the malicious glee with which he broke off a speech to an audience of businessmen to tell them that Basil d'Oliveira had not been selected in the England team. Later, after d'Oliveira was selected I remember the arrogant fury with which as an official Government act he cancelled the England tour to his country. That was bringing politics into sport, and politics in its most explosive and most uncivilised—I repeat, uncivilised—form.
Many people in all parties have wondered how after that tragic episode the Cricket Council found it possible to send an invitation to a South African team which would be selected on the Vorster principle of apartheid. They find it diffi-
1462
cult to understand because apartheid violates the basic foundation of world co-operation in international sport.
Mr. Julian Amery: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—
Mr. Noel-Baker: No, I think not. Many hon. Members want to speak.
Mr. Amery Mr. Amery rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) does not give way, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) must sit down.
Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not give way simply to make it possible for more hon. Members to speak in the debate.
People of whom I am speaking find it difficult to understand because apartheid violates the basic foundation of world co-operation in international sport. The basic foundation is now accepted in all the continents and in every other form of sport. They find it hard to understand because of other events which have happened in recent years. In 1968, a valiant effort was made by those who share the Cricket Council's views to bring South Africa back to the Olympic Games. That effort was swept away by a world-wide wave of opposition. Because of apartheid, South Africa was overwhelmingly finally ejected from the Games.
In 1969, after long deliberation, South Africa was ejected from the Davis Cup. Going back a little further, there was another important and relevant event. In 1961, when Mr. Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister, and most of the party leaders opposite were Ministers in his Administration, South Africa was ejected from the Commonwealth itself. The reason for its ejection was apartheid. These people of all parties find it hard to understand why the Cricket Council issued its invitation to the South Africans to come, but they did so acting on a principle which they think valid. They issued it and now they and we have to face the practical results of what they have done.
I shall ask some questions and suggest some answers for the consideration of the House. In 1961, the late Lord

1463
Attlee gave the Chicéle Lectures in Oxford with the title, "Empire into Commonwealth". The peroration of his last lecture began as follows:
"One further rather curious link in the Commonwealth must be mentioned. That is the game of cricket. Apart from a team in Holland and a couple in the United States, the game of cricket is confined to the Commonwealth and…it is played with enormous enthusiasm in India, Pakistan, the West Indies, Australia and New Zealand. Everywhere this very distinctive British game evokes enthusiasm."
Commonwealth cricket has been a glory to all concerned. I remember an amazing match in Melbourne some years ago, before 100,000 delirious spectators. Australia and the West Indies ended on the fifth day with a fantastic tie. A few days later, when the West Indians left the country, half a million Australians went to Sydney Docks to bid them goodbye. The East-West tradition goes back to the immortal Ranjitsinghi, whom hon. Members of my generation used to see in their youth. But goodbye to all that if the present tour goes on.
The Times reports today that
"the Indian Government have private fears that the world of sport may divide into two formal white and non-white camps if India is forced to cancel her future arrangements with the MC.C. because the South African tour is not called off."
One thing at least is certain. Bishop David Sheppard said, in a letter to The Times the other day:
"International cricket will disintegrate into a black camp and a white camp and Commonwealth cricket will infallibly be killed."
As the Indian Government fear, there may be wider repercussions.
That leads me to my second question: what will this tour do to the Commonwealth Games? I have always, for 60 years, been a defender of the Olympic movement. When almost all the Press and many Governments were hostile, when they said that the games would produce quarrels and lead to international misunderstanding, I maintained that they were wrong. I have seen the Olympic movement grow into the most important factor in the world today for international good understanding. That that is true of all sport is my profound belief.
Sport is now a bond of great strength between the races in different continents, but the Commonwealth Games are something special. In the athletes' village, in
1464
the stadia, there is a warmth and friendship which infuses every waking hour and every competitive event, but the Commonwealth Games will infallibly be killed if the tour goes on. The Indian Government, last week, told their Parliament that no Indian team would come to Edinburgh if the tour goes on. They have been followed by Malaysia, Ceylon, and Singapore. Pakistan has gone even further and cancelled an under-25 cricket tour which was to take place in this country in a few weeks' time. That leaves us, in Asia, with Hong Kong.
It is amply evident that no West Indian team will come. Tobago, Trinidad, Barbados, Guyana, have already spoken. Ten African Governments have declared a boycott. The spokesman of Sierra Leone said yesterday, in Freetown:
"It is inconceivable that under prevailing circumstances any African country would wish to expose its athletes to the inevitable humiliation that is bound to accompany such participation."
Hon. Members may say that is extravagant nonsense. I would reply that it is a basic fact that if we accept apartheid in our cricket people of colour will feel that it is a humiliation if they take part in other sport with us. We must understand the fierce revulsion which a colour bar produces in their hearts. Yesterday, Mr. Walter Winterbottom, who has done so much for British football, for the Sports Council, and for British sport generally, said that if the boycott at Edinburgh should occur one would be bound to wonder about the future of Commonwealth Games. I go further. I predict that if the tour goes on the Commonwealth Games will be dead for good and all.
I come to my next question: what will the tour do to the Commonwealth itself? The Commonwealth has more institutional machinery than some people understand. Very much of what is genuinely important consists of tenuous moral, psychological, intellectual, links which come out of long years of fruitful co-operation in the past. But let the peoples of the coloured members think for a moment that Britain is soft on apartheid and the power of those links will be grievously diminished, perhaps for all time to come. That is precisely what millions of people in the Commonwealth and in the world generally will think if the tour goes on.

1465
Fourth, what will the tour do to Britain? It will cause racial tension of a kind we have never known. No one speaks with greater authority on the subject than Bishop Trevor Huddleston.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Michael Foot: Listen to the Tories jeering.
Mr. Noel-Baker: The bishop has lived with apartheid in Africa. He wrote the other day:
"I think it would be a totally disastrous thing if this country is not prepared to see that this is something that could escalate racial tension here in a very big way indeed. Just imagine the Test Match at the Oval, where there are enormously large coloured communities. This is totally irresponsible. Whether you like to watch cricket is a secondary issue."
Lord Hunt of Everest speaks with authority equal to that of the bishop. He gives the bishop full support and he touches on the very kernel of the argument put by those who support the tour. He said in a recent letter to The Times:
"I am as concerned as anyone to uphold the right of a private body to engage in a lawful activity and for private individuals to enjoy it. I am totally against the relentless pursuit of that activity irrespective of the greater harm it is likely to do to the community in general. This is what is likely to happen if the Cricket Council maintain their intention; they will bear a heavy responsibility for the internecine strife which will probably ensue."
Lastly, what of the police? The police are heavily overstrained by the present mounting wave of crime and by the criminal acts of motorists who cause fatal accidents. It is a nonsense to impose this appalling extra burden on them. What may be the long-term results on law and order in our cities? What opportunities shall we be gratuitously giving to the gangsters who want to foster violence in every way they can?
I am opposed to violence in support of this or any other cause. I want reason to prevail. I hope that there will be an overwhelming consensus of opinion in the House this afternoon that the tour shall be dropped. I hope that Parliament's
appeal will be heard by the Cricket Council and that it will yield to warnings of dangers it has not foreseen. If it withdraws its invitation, it will render a signal service to the cause of cricket, to the cause of international sport, and to the
1466
virility and power of the Commonwealth itself. That would be no minor matter.
In spite of all its present troubles, the Commonwealth, with its bonds between peoples of all colours and all continents, may still be the strongest political and moral force in world affairs and the best hope for mankind's lasting peace.
4.16 p.m.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: I know that everybody in the House has a deep respect for the passionate sincerity with which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) supported this particular proposition, as in the course of his long and very distinguished career he has supported many others. I know that that experience will enable him to recognise the sincerity of those who take a different view on this matter, as many of us do on many other matters, from those which he takes.
Will he, however, allow me, first, to correct him on a straight matter of history? He referred to the departure of South Africa from the Comonwealth at a time when, as he said, many of my right hon. Friends were members of the Government. It is not true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that South Africa was evicted from the Commonwealth. The decision to resign from the Commonwealth, regretted, I think, by many people, was a decision of the South African Government of the day. This is purely a matter of history; as the right hon. Gentleman stated the contrary, I thought that I should put the record straight.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I have had the honour to be Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and I know how these things are done. South Africa left the Comonwealth because all the other members desired that she should.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman has been Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. However, lie was not a Minister at the time, and I was. I tell him that on the point of fact, he is mistaken.
Mr. Andrew Faulds Mr. Andrew Faulds(Smethwick) rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but, just like the right hon. Member for Derby, South, to whom, none the less, I gave way, I am trying to bear in mind your injunction to us to be brief; and, as you have said, giving way frequently undoubtedly prolongs speeches. I intend mine to be a very short speech.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it from me that many of us on this side and in the country greatly regret the situation which has developed; because, in my view, it is clear that, whatever happens now, a good deal of harm will be done. It may be—I hope and believe that this is so—that the right hon. Gentleman has exaggerated the ill consequences of the tour's going on. I think that he must recognise the damaging consequences which will arise if it is now cancelled.
It will be plain to all concerned inside and outside this country that a perfectly lawful activity has been cancelled because of the threat of force and because it is feared that the Government of the day will be unable or unwilling to enable lawful activities to take place. Hon. Members opposite have often stood, to their credit, for unpopular causes. The right hon. Member for Derby, South has done so and we respect him for it. If causes which are unpopular—and a recent poll does not suggest that this one is; and the Government attach importance to polls, they have been living on "pep polls" for the last few days—have to be stopped because of the threat of force that is a process which goes to the root of any ordered and orderly society.
It may be an unpopular cricket team today, it could be a minority political group or religious group tomorrow. It is surely the duty of us all in considering this issue and all issues to reflect that the abandonment of lawful actions under the threat of unlawful force is a danger to the pillars on which an ordered society rests. It is a pity that this tour has been given, by its opponents, a wholly unnecessary political significance.
South African teams have been coming here for years while apartheid has been the policy of the South African Government. They came here after the horror of Sharpville. This tour has been given this political importance very largely because of the agitation against it. The principle has been that tours from over-
1468
seas countries come here whatever we think of the internal policies of their Governments. The policy has been that to accept that, they are not official representatives.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The policy has been that it is a good thing rather than a bad thing for young people in unofficial positions to meet and talk with each other. This has been the prevailing policy.
Mrs. Kerr Mrs. Kerr rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is why we have welcomed here, for example, the Red Army Choir.
Mrs. Kerr Mrs. Kerr rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This House, in one of its most impressive moments 18 months ago, denounced the Russian occupation of Czechoslovakia, about which we were all deeply moved. During recent months the Red Army Choir has been here, an official part of the Soviet State and of the Soviet armed forces—although its military significance may not be very great—which over-ran Czechoslovakia. If the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr)—and I think that I anticipate her—replies that the difference is that the South African team is all-white—
Mrs. Kerr: Why am I not allowed to speak? I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can anticipate my reply if I have not been allowed to ask my question.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I am to be subjected to continuous sedentary interruptions by the hon. Lady I shall take longer than I intended, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Kerr Mrs. Kerr rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We welcomed here the arrival of the Red Army Choir, part of the apparatus of the Soviet State. Hon. Members opposite may say that there is a difference because the South African cricket team is wholly white. But how many practising Christians, how

1469
many aristocrats, how many kulaks, how many Jews, were in the Red Army Choir? If we are to say that we are not to indulge in sporting activities against countries whose political régimes we disapprove, we will limit ourselves very seriously indeed in our activities.
I say to the House, with just as much sincerity as the right hon. Gentleman, that if we are voluntarily to cut ourselves off from personal and individual contacts with young unofficial persons from other countries and régimes of whom we disapprove we will do more damage to international relations than we could do in any other single way. It is no use saying, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that the coming of teams selected on this basis must have disastrous consequences. Those who do not wish to see a team are under no obligation to watch it playing. They can stay away. This has been the principle for many years.
I know people inside and outside this House who will not go to functions in connection with particular countries about whom they have deep feelings. They show those deep feelings by absenting themselves and refusing any contact with these people. This, with respect, is the civilised way to indicate a dissent if we feel it. But to plunge into organising disturbances, which however innocent they may be in their conception, are known to every grown man and woman to be certain to lead in the long run to serious disorder, is a very wrong way to indicate disapproval.
Moreover, from a practical point of view, it is self-defeating because it tends to create sympathy for the very people against whom the demonstration is organised. Therefore, on the merits of the matter, having got to this stage, having faced the threats, I hope that this tour will go on.
It is wrong, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, to put all the responsibility on the Cricket Council. [An HON. MEMBER: "It delayed too long."] If the Government believe that the arrival of this team will have these serious consequences, they have the power to deal with this. The team consists of people who are in law aliens. I do not think that the Home Secretary will dispute that he has the power to regulate the
1470
entry of aliens. If the Home Secretary—and he does this again and again—is convinced that the arrival of particular aliens will cause trouble and danger in this country, he exercises his power to prohibit their entry.
Mr. John Mendelson Mr. John Mendelson(Penistone) rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: He and his predecessors have done so again and again.
Mr. Mendelson Mr. Mendelson rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is quite unfair to put on the Cricket Council, concerned as it is with the organisation of this tour on a cricketing basis—
Mr. Faulds: And Conservative victory.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter:—responsibility for all these public issues when, if the Government think that disorder and trouble and Commonwealth disturbance would follow, the Government, if they are prepared to take the responsibility, have the power to intervene. I hope that the Government will not intervene and I say that to prevent any misunderstanding because I think again that it would be a surrender to force. But I do protest against putting the responsibility wholly on the Cricket Council.
I come now to the position of the Government.
Mr. John Mendelson Mr. John Mendelson rose—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I accept the sincerity—
Mr. Mendelson Mr. Mendelson rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously not giving way.
Mr. Mendedson: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a remark that I made and it is custom and practice in this House that if an hon. Member refers to a remark made by another hon. Member he should give way to him.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is sometimes not done.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I say, on that, that I am not conscious of having heard any remark from the hon. Gentleman and that, good though my telepathic

1471
gifts may be, I could not by that method appreciate what the hon. Gentleman thought he was saying.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: On a point of order. How is it that the right hon. Gentleman assumed that he knew what I would ask, assuming that his telepathic qualities are as he says?
Mr. Speaker: point of order.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I come to the position of the Government in this matter. While I acknowledge the deep sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends the attitude, of the Government can be looked at in a very different way. Last week, we heard from the Secretary of State for Defence. through a Written Answer, that the Royal Navy had been conducting exercises in company with the South African Navy and Air Force.
The week before, the President of the Board of Trade had been full of pride in the House about British trade figures with South Africa. Apparently, we can trade with South Africa to our own benefit and we can be allies with South Africa—for that is the implication of these exercises, that if war should come we should fight and die together for the same cause; that is the Government's view, that this is all right. But the Government's delicate conscience jibs at the prospect of playing cricket with these people.
I understand, respect and agree with those who hate apartheid. I hate it, too. I think that it is well described by the French quotation that it is worse than a crime; it is a blunder. I understand but disagree with respect with those who say that they will have nothing to do with it and put on a complete boycott. I have less sympathy for those in office who are prepared to support the British balance of trade and defence strategy throughout the world through co-operation with South Africa but suddenly find that their moral scruples are too delicate to enable them to allow 11 young unofficial South Africans to come here and play a game of cricket.
That is an indefensible position and, what is more, it is a sham.
Mr. Faulds: The South Africans are representatives of the minority group, not a South African team.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Government are prepared—
Mr. Faulds: It is not a South African team.
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Sidney Irving): Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must contain himself.
Mr. Faulds: I have made the point. It is not a South African team.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: On a point of order and clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spent part of my war service being trained in the Union of South Africa as aircrew. The black South African was allowed to fight, but—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not a point of order, nor is it, to my mind, a defence of the Government, with whom I am dealing.
Mr. Faulds: It is not a representative South African team.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick really is not helping the tone of the debate at all.
Mr. Faulds: I am clarifying the facts.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Government are prepared in the ultimate to fight alongside South Africans, but are not prepared to play cricket with South Africans. I would say of a Government who can adopt an attitude of such calculated insincerity that it is not necessary to make little wax images to hold them up to derision. The naked truth brings it out and entitles them to contempt.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell): It might be convenient to the House if I intervene rather earlier than is sometimes the case so as to express the view of the Government on this matter. I say at once that some of us do not have to be defended from the charge or insincerity which the right

1473
hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) lavished with such gay abandon.
Never in my experience have I had to deal with a question where the issues were as deep, as emotional and as involved as in this one. And because the issues are so deep, emotional and involved, I hope that the House will try, as I shall try, to discuss them as dispassionately and calmly as possible—indeed, in the tone set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker).
All of us agree that, as far as possible, we want on all occasions to divorce politics from sport and culture, but I want to give an example of the complexity of these issues politically. I thought that we should hear about the Red Army Choir's visit to this country. On 26th August, 1968, when we were all caught up in the agonies of the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Russia, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) said:
"I think that there was a large consensus in the House that this would be a mistake, or, at any rate for the Government to take the lead, although I would make one exception immediately, the one made by my right hon. Friend, namely, that it would be totally intolerable if the Red Army Choir were to come to this country at present."-[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th August, 1968; Vol. 769, c. 1404.]
On the following Friday evening, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod)—I am sorry that he is not here—went on the David Frost Show and discussed these great matters of the relationship between politics and sport, and in the presence of a well-known sportsman said that not only should the Red Army Choir not come, but that in his view it was quite intolerable that any sporting contacts should continue between the Soviet Union and Britain at that time.
It is true that, since then, the right hon. Gentleman has written in the Sunday Express explaining why he is going to Twickenham to watch the South Africans play rugby. He is entitled to hold different views for different occasions. I merely make the point to show how difficult, deep and involved it is for someone who, like myself, has responsibility in both these activities.
Mr. Amery Mr. Amery rose—
Mr. Howell: I do not want to give way now.
Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: The hon. Gentleman is not clever enough to give way.
Mr. Howell: I am quite happy to be told by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) that I am not clever enough to give way. I will leave it to the judgment of the House. Since the opening passage of my speech was not even in my notes, I do not want to give way at this stage.
I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South, because he is one of the few hon. Members of the House who is uniquely positioned to raise this matter and to take a view. If it was his last speech in this House—one newspaper today told us that it would be—no doubt he will think that he could not have made it on a greater issue of principle.
I turn now to the contribution of cricket. It is right to remind the House, particularly some hon. Members, that cricket has probably made a greater contribution to multi-racial sport than almost any other. That factor should not be lost sight of. But it is essentially a British Commonwealth game and because the British Commonwealth is multiracial it must follow that international cricket must be multi-racial or die. Whilst it is for the Cricket Council to consider the implications for the future of multi-racial cricket involved in this invitation and these events, I cannot think—indeed, I find it inconceivable—that Commonwealth countries which say that they will not be coming to the Commonwealth Games to run, swim, box, or fence against us can find it possible later on to come and play cricket. I hope that that will not be the case, but, nevertheless, it is a matter of tremendous importance for the game of cricket itself and for the Cricket Council to consider.
I want to say something about the relationship between Government and sport, which I have found during the last six years to be very delicate indeed. Ministers charged with responsibility for sport—and I know that the Shadow Minister of Sport faces the same difficulties sometimes—are concerned at drawing

1475
the line and maintaining the principle that we all wish to maintain, that Government participation ought to he entirely for the encouragement and development of sport. That principle has been the basis on which I have tried to operate.
It is to me a matter of absolute principle that the Government ought not to interfere in matters which should be the responsibility of sport itself, and much of the thinking of the Government and the attitude of the Government derive from that principle of trying to maintain the integrity of the governing bodies of sport in running their own affairs.
This principle of such importance was breached in the case of Basil d'Oliveira, and much of what has flowed since comes from the breaching of this principle on that occasion. I regret to say, both as a Minister and as a sportsman, that it
has been subsequently breached by the South African Government in the cases of
Ashe, the tennis player, a jockey and a golfer. There has been a consistent breaching of what is to me a hallowed principle.
I do not therefore think that the right hon. Gentleman can say as he did that this tour as a fixture was established some years ago and that Sharpeville makes no difference. This tour might have taken place ten years ago, or even five years ago, without the great commotion that it is likely to cause now when we are living in the wake of the events which I have outlined to the House. Whatever view we take we must face the reality of the situation that this question gives the widest possible offence to most Commonwealth countries.
The proposed tour raises deep feelings, and four questions of great public importance have to be considered by the Government and by the Cricket Council. First, the effect of the proposed tour upon racial harmony; secondly, questions of law and order, which the right hon. Gentleman properly raised; thirdly, the implications for the Commonwealth Games; fourthly, the long-term interests of sport.
I am not qualified to speak on racial harmony. One can only take note of the people with specific responsibility in this matter, who have made their views known to the Cricket Council, and hope that the council will take account of what they say. The Community Relations Commission wrote in February of this year to my
1476
right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in these terms:
"We recognise that this is a matter which lies within the jurisdiction of the M.C.C.…"
The Commission was wrong there. It should be the Cricket Council.
"…and over which you as Secretary of State have no control. Nevertheless, I should like to put on record our conviction that if this visit takes place the result can only be one which will do untold damage to community relations in this country."
One does not have to accept that advice, but before turning it down one has to consider it very carefully. Secondly, the British Council of Churches, in its statement of 21st April, 1970, and in its resolution, took the view that the council should make further representations to the Cricket Council that the tour should be cancelled. Those two bodies who preeminently deal with and have responsibility for community relations have unequivocally placed their views on record.
Mr. Amery: The Minister has based much of his argument on the d'Oliveira case, which is the most sensitive case and the one in which we all feel most interest. Is not it significant that Basil d'Oliveira, that great gentleman sportsman, has said that he would like to see the South Africans come here so that we can show them on the pitch and in the pavilion what it is like to play against a mixed team?
Mr. Howell: All of us who know Mr. Basil d'Oliveira and of his anguish during this time have nothing but the highest admiration for the way in which he has conducted himself, but I do not place the significance that the right hon. Gentleman places on his statement. Basil d'Oliveira has tried to keep out of the political and moral obligations of the situation, and it is in keeping with his view that he says, "I want to play against anybody at any time", which is exactly the view of the Cricket Council. I am expressing views, on an analysis of the situation, on wider issues which Mr. d'Oliveira could not properly take into account.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is sitting here and we shall hear whether the question of law and order arises. I hope that it will not play an important part in the debate, but in case it does I say clearly that the Government, and particularly my right hon.

1477
Friend, will strenuously seek to protect the right of people to play lawful games if they wish to do so and the right to express peaceful dissent. Those two rights will be protected as strenuously as possible.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said on the third issue of the Commonwealth Games. Anyone who has had the privilege of seeing the Commonwealth Games, as I have, realises that this is the one occasion above all others, when the Commonwealth is meaningful and comes to life. The spirit of co-operation and of true sporting friendship and fellowship is far different from that found in the Olympic Games. There is still a competitive spirit, but the co-operation between the member nations of the Commonwealth in assisting each other in coaching, technique, and so on, can only be understood by those who have experienced it.
There is no doubt that the unique contribution made by the Commonwealth Games to the British Commonwealth will be seriously undermined if most of the Asian, African and Caribbean countries withdraw. The Government have done an appreciation, and out of the 18 countries involved in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean we believe that 12 countries have already indicated their intention to withdraw, or will most certainly do so, that three countries will participate and that three are uncertain. If this should happen the Commonwealth Games will completely change its character, and its contribution to the Commonwealth will be undermined. In terms of numbers, 600 athletes or sportsmen, one-third of the total contingent, would not be in Edinburgh.
This being so, small wonder that the two Scottish bodies concerned, the Scottish Commonwealth Games Council and the Scottish Sports Council, have take- a serious view of the situation. The Scottish Commonwealth Games Council has written to the British Commonwealth Games Federation, the overall parent body, and sent copies of the letter to the Cricket Council and the Sports Council. The council bases its approach on consideration of hard facts to which we should all have regard. It says that the facilities to be used in the games represent a capital investment in excess of £A
1478
million, and the organising committee has incurred tremendous liabilities running into more than £½ million. Tickets have been sold and reservations have been made on the basis that the public will be seeing the genuine Commonwealth Games.
The council says that work has proceeded for 31 years and that planning of the games under the chairmanship of Sir Herbert Brechin has been proceeding for 14 years. It concludes by saying that the success of the games in Scotland and the future of multi-racial sport in the Commonwealth should not be at risk on account of a situation over which it has no direct control. It would be thought very difficult to dissent from that sober view, not of politicians but of sportsmen who have given many years to organising the Commonwealth Games in Scotland. The Scottish Sports Council, which represents all the local authorities and sports bodies in Scotland, has taken a similar view, and unanimously endorsed the contents of the letter I have just read out.
The fourth question is the issue for sport, which we must consider as best we can. I have always thought it interesting that where we have a sport with a genuine governing body it is impossible for South Africa to be a participating member. The Olympic movement, the Federation of International Football Associations, and now the Lawn Tennis Association, all find it quite impossible to have a member country which says that half the countries in membership of that body cannot visit it, or can do so only on terms which are quite unacceptable to the rest. In these great issues we are dealing with a peculiarly British sport, in which there is no international governing body in the sense that we know it in the Olympic movement or anywhere else. That is a thought we should all consider.
Whose job is it if there are repercussions for sport as a whole outside an individual sport? There is only one body in the country—and for good or ill I happen to be the chairman—with such a wide responsibility, and that is the Sports Council for Great Britain. It has received copies of the two resolutions from the Scottish Commonwealth Games Council and the Scottish Sports Council and thought it right in the circumstances

1479
to hold an emergency meeting, which was held this morning. First, it tried to face up to the question of the responsibilities of a governing body of sport in wider social matters.
This is not a philosophical question to which most sportsmen would very often address themselves. The council reached the conclusion, which might be of interest to the House and it will certainly be of greater interest to sports bodies, that the responsibilities of a governing body of sport were, first, to its own sport, and, second, to sport in general. Third, it said that a governing body should take account of the influence which its actions might have on the community as a whole.
The council went on to consider the specific question of the South African tour. I think that the best thing I can do is to read out the full text of the resolution on which it reached overwhelming agreement. I could say that it reached unanimous agreement, but I think that it would be wrong to do so since there were one or two members not present who I do not think would have supported the resolution. I am not criticising them for not being there, because the meeting was called at short notice. The resolution said:
"The Sports Council strongly urges the Cricket Council to withdraw the invitation to the South African Cricket Association for the 1970 tour. It does so because it believes the consequences of the tour taking place will have harmful repercussions on sport, especially multi-racial sport, extending far beyond cricket itself.
The Sports Council maintains that governing bodies of sport must have autonomy and authority in the control of their own affairs, and therefore recommends that the Government should not intervene directly in this matter.
The Sports Council has reached these conclusions in the exercise of its responsibility for all aspects of sport, after taking fully into account the past development of the South African issue and its likely future implications for sport as a whole.
With regard to the partiuclar question of the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh, the Sports Council believes that the longer-term interests of multi-racial sport in the Commonwealth transcend all other aspects of the issue. In support of the British Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland and the Sports Council for Scotland, the Sports Council urges all countries who have already accepted invitations to the Games to send teams to participate."
1480
Copies of that resolution have been received by the Government and have been dispatched to the Cricket Council.
I believe that the Sports Council has the position exactly right. It would be a serious error for the Government to go beyond the possibilities of persuasion and to interfere directly. I certainly agree that the autonomy of sports bodies means, too, an acceptance of full responsibility by those bodies. I recognise the difficulty for any governing body of sport in having regard to the wider interests of other sports for which it is not specifically responsible.
Therefore, because the Sports Council has faced up to that position, I hope that the Cricket Council will find it possible to accept the advice that the Sports Council has felt compelled to offer in respect of all the circumstances of the tour.
4.56 p.m.
Mr. Reginald Maudling (Barnet): The issue raises problems of the greatest importance, and I think that the debate has recognised that in the sincerity with which deffering points of view have been put forward.
I shall try to put my own point of view on what seem to me to be the big issues confronting us. The first thing to do must be to state quite clearly once again, although it should be unnecessary, that the House has always shown its total opposition to the principle of apartheid. Perhaps I may be personal for a moment. The post which gave me most pleasure and pride in the Government—and I think that the Home Secretary will agree as he held it as well in opposition—was that of Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman and I both in our time did something to advance the cause of multiracial arrangements and independence in our colonial territories.
Just a few weeks ago I visited South Africa. There were two impressions that I brought back most clearly. In the airport building in Johannesburg the first thing I saw was a post office for whites and a post office for non-whites. That is unbelievable. Then someone very dear to me said, "I have a small daughter who is being looked after by a very nice African woman. How can I explain to her when she grows up that the person

1481
closer to her than anyone except her mother cannot travel on the same bus or go to the same restaurant?"
We all know these things, and I think that we all agree on the matter. I believe that the Afrikaaners are sincere in their views on apartheid. One of the problems is that they are so sincere. But that does not stop us believing completely that they are totally wrong.
May we start from that proposition to consider the particular question of the cricket tour and whether it is right to play now with a South African team? This must surely be argued not on the merits of apartheid, on which we agree, but on the merits of the tour, on which clearly there is some division within the House.
There appear to be several arguments against the tour taking place. The first, I think, is that if it goes ahead we shall appear to be condoning apartheid. The second argument—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman put this case very fairly—is that it is wrong to accept a team in a sporting event picked on a basis other than sheer sporting merit.
I am not sure that these arguments can be reconciled with the facts of the world in which we live. How can it be condoning apartheid to play cricket but not condoning apartheid to work to increase trade between our two countries? It is common ground on both sides of the House that we wish to see more trade with South Africa.
Why is it right to go into business and to make money with a man with whom it is wrong to play cricket? I find this difficult to understand. Trade and industry in South Africa is just as much based on apartheid as is cricket. There is a great inconsistency here. It could almost be regarded as a certain measure of hypocrisy on the part possibly of all of us. We sometimes tend to blame certain things on certain people when it is convenient to us and to ignore them when it is not convenient. Why is it wrong to condone apartheid in the matter of cricket but not in terms of trade? I find this an unanswerable proposition.
Secondly, it is argued that we should not play sport with people who pick their teams on grounds other than merit. On that matter I thought the Minister
1482
was a little faulty in his logic. He said it is right to leave sporting bodies to make their own decisions, and I am sure he is correct. He then went on to say that the South African Government had broken this rule. Again he is right. But that is no argument that we should do the same thing.
An Hon. Member: What about d'Oliveira?
Mr. Maudling: I will come to d'Oliveira in a moment. Is it possible to pursue the principle that we should only play games with people when we know that the team has been picked solely on the grounds of merit? We must be realistic. How many non-members of the Communist Party would appear in a team sent here by a Communist country? What happened to the famous Zatopek? In welcoming sportsmen from Russia we in no way condone the Russian occupation of Czechoslovakia. It is surely the same thing.
I know that racialism is regarded, and for many good reasons, as being the most abhorrent of the many forms of tyranny in the world. But all tyranny is tyranny. If we do not play games with people from a country whose choice of team is based on grounds of racial discrimination, why play them with people whose team is chosen on a basis of political discrimination?
Mr. John Mendelson rose—
Mr. Maudling: I will not give way. Many Members want to speak and I want to give them time.
I would argue the opposite of this proposition. I would argue that it is a positive gain to encourage people to come here and play games with us so that they are able to see the freedom and tolerance in this country. Let them learn from our system, a system that is based on merit. Let them play with teams here who are always chosen on the basis of merit and not on grounds of race, creed, religion or politics.
Mr. Paul B. Rose rose—
Mr. Maudling: No, I will not give way. I am trying to be as brief as I can.
Mr. Rose: What about Lancashire Cricket Club?
Mr. Maudling: What would we achieve for the non-white people of South Africa if we were to ban this tour? Just as it would be no help at all to the people of Czechoslovakia to ban the entry of Russian athletes to this country, so it will in no way help the non-white people of South Africa if we were to ban this tour.
Let me give two examples. I will call in evidence two people on this point. The first is Mr. Basil d'Oliveira, to whom I referred earlier. I thought the Minister of State slightly under-estimated the importance of Mr. d'Oliveira's view that it is right for this tour to go ahead.
Secondly, I will quote Mrs. Suzman—
Mr. John Mendelson: She is wrong, too.
Mr. Maudling: Mrs. Suzman is a woman for whom I have a very high regard. It is only three weeks ago that I saw her in South Africa and was able—
An Hon. Member: She is a minority.
Mr. Maudling: Yes, she is a minority. She is a woman on her own fighting against the whole political power of South Africa. Surely the views of Mrs. Suzman, who has been a lone, brave voice in Africa against apartheid for several years, are those of somebody who knows far more about the realities of South Africa than hon. Members below the Gangway.
Mr. Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that against the view he has quoted are the views of many leading churchmen in South Africa. They have spoken to me and to my right hon. and hon. Friends. There are many people in public life who have told us when we have been there—
Hon. Members: Has the hon. Gentleman been there?
Mr. Mendelson: Yes, I have been there. They have told us that the only real policy to adopt is that of not continuing relations with racially-selected teams. There are many black representatives who also take this view.
Mr. Maudling: That may be so. I was quoting the view of one lady whom I believe is unique in her own experience and the situation there. She is better
1484
qualified than anyone else to speak about the position in South Africa.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: How many black voters are there?
Mr. Maudling: I am trying to develop a serious and sincere argument. There is a threat by Commonwealth countries to boycott the Commonwealth Games. Secondly, there is the claim that the burden on the police will be excessive and that there is a threat of domestic conflict. These are the two basic arguments.
We must beware of what is being argued on these points. I believe our basic principle must be that any man is entitled to do what is lawful and to expect that the state will protect him from unlawful interference. This must be the first duty of government. This was very well said in the leading article in The Times today.
Once a man is denied the right to do what is lawful because other people at home or overseas may disagree with his views, it would be striking at the roots of freedom under the law. Once we admit the right of people to enforce their views by violent means with impunity—and there are many examples in the world today—democracy is at risk. I beg the House not to under-estimate in any way the real importance of this side of the argument.
Mr. Michael Foot: Are we not also debating the judgment of the Cricket Council in proceeding with the tour? Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to that question, particularly in the light of the different judgment reached by the Sports Council?
Mr. Maudling: It is not for this House to sit in judgment on the Cricket Council or on any other private body of people within the law. The duty of this House is to deal with Ministerial responsibility in these matters. This debate arises only in so far as there is Governmental responsibility.
I turn to the question of the Commonwealth Games. I accept that it would be a tragedy if these Games were undermined, bearing in mind all the effort which has gone into this event and its importance to Scotland. But that is not the only argument. What is the relevance to the Games of the admission of a South African cricket team to this country?
Mrs. Anne Kerr: White South African.
Mr. Maudling: White South African, yes. We were told that it would be a humiliation to other people to come here to take part in these Games in athletics when at the same time another team was doing something quite different elsewhere. I find that hard to understand. There is no South African team taking part in the Commonwealth Games and, by allowing a South African team to come here, we are not condoning the policy of apartheid any more than we are condoning it by continuing to trade with South Africa. We must not yield to pressure. If we do, where will it stop? It was rightly said by the Minister or the right hon. Gentleman that sport should be above politics, but how long will it be above politics if pressure—one could almost say "blackmail"—is effective to stop people doing something legal simply because other people disapproved?
Where might it go after South Africa? Some other countries in the Commonwealth pursue non-white immigration politics which might well be offensive to some of our Commonwealth friends. What is the position of America? Might it not be said to be wrong to admit American sportsmen or athletes so long as they had a discrimination against the African-origin population in the South? Where does this stop once we start down this road? It is of the utmost importance to make up our own minds and not be deflected, pressurised, bullied or blackmailed by any pressure from outside which we believe to be wrong.
Finally, the fourth argument is the strain on the police and the effect of possible civil disturbance. To blame the strain on the police, as I think the right hon. Gentleman did, on the Cricket Council, is turning logic on its head. There will only be violence, there will only be need for police intervention, there will only be occasion for further police casualties such as we have seen in recent weeks and months, if the demonstrators start the violence; it will not be the cricketers who start it. It is an absolute nonsense to blame on the people who are doing something peaceable and lawful, something which might arise if other people take the law into their own hands.
I was glad to hear from the Minister a clear undertaking on behalf of the
1486
Home Secretary that the Government would ensure that the peace was kept. It is the primary duty of the Government to ensure—I hope that they will not deviate from this in any way—that if the tour goes ahead, as I hope and believe that it will, and any demonstrations are caused of a non-peaceable character, the forces of law and order will deal with them. It is not so much properly described as a question of law and order. It is the fundamental principle of freedom under the law. Unless the law is observed there can be no freedom. Surely this House should be fundamentally concerned with this, which is the basic point of the whole argument.
What, finally, is the rôle of the House of Comons in this matter? Surely, as I said earlier, this debate is taking place only on the basis of some Ministerial responsibility. Our job is either to urge the Government or to criticise the Government. The Government, therefore, must make their position rather clearer than they have up till now. Without any doubt, they have the power to stop the tour by denying as they are legally entitled to do, admission to this country to the people who are coming to play in it. If they want to stop it they should use this power and accept the responsibility.
What is wrong is that the Government should try to evade this responsibility by vague expressions of hope or of preference. If they believe it to be in the national interest that the tour should be stopped, let them accept their responsibility as a Government. Let them use the powers which they have and let them explain their reasons—
Mr. John Mendelson: Do you recommend it?
Mr. Maudling: No, I have made it absolutely clear that I do not. But the party opposite, who appear to believe that this tour should stop, should make it clear that they are asking their Government, in the name of themselves as Members of Parliament, to use their legal powers to stop it. If the Government do not intend to use their powers to stop the entry of these men to play cricket in this country, it is obviously their duty to see that the peace is kept and that citizens about their lawful, peaceable occupations, are in no way

1487
prevented by violence from doing what it is their right as citizens of this country to do.
I said at the beginning that these issues are deep and emotional ones. I recognise the arguments on both sides, but I appeal to the House to recognise that one thing which is fundamental to all this argument is that if the South African team arrives and is admitted to this country lawfully to be here amongst us they are entitled to play cricket here and the Government should see that they are able to do so.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Reg Prentice: It is a curious constitutional doctrine for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to say that the House should be concerned this afternoon only with the limits of the Government's responsibility in this matter. I should have thought that it was the right, and indeed the duty, of a sovereign Parliament to debate things of this kind which are important to the community, which are important to our international relations, to race relations in Britain and to the many other aspects which have been mentioned. the Government's responsibility here is only one aspect—although an important one—of the matter under discussion.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) on his initiative in getting this debate. We all agree that, whether or not this is his last House of Commons speech, it was certainly a very distinguished House of Commons speech and it was particularly fitting that he of all hon. Members, with his great record in international affairs and in sport, should have introduced this debate.
The two speeches from the benches opposite have been feeble in the extreme. They relied mostly—or at least they pretended to rely, for public relations purposes—on the law and order argument. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said—I hope that I took down his words correctly—that it would be a very serious and disturbing matter if lawful activities had to be abandoned because of the threat of force.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Mr. Boyd-Carpenter indicated assent.
Mr. Prentice: I would agree with that conclusion, as most of us would, if the premise were correct. Surely it is absolute nonsense to suggest that the main opposition which is being expressed towards this tour is coming simply from those who will break the law and commit violence at the time of the cricket matches.
Let us take the demonstrations themselves. We know from our experience as constituency members—I certainly know it from my brief experience on the committee of the Fair Cricket Campaign—that many thousands of people intend to demonstrate against these matches who would never dream of breaking the law or committing violent acts. Indeed, many thousands of people will demonstrate who have never demonstrated in their lives before. My own post on this subject, and that of other hon. Members, shows that this is so.
I hope that no hon. Member would suggest that there should be any doubts cast upon the rights of people to protest and demonstrate peacefully simply because there might, on the fringe of that demonstration, be an element of violence. Peaceful demonstrations and protests have a long and honourable tradition in this country and many of our basic liberties spring from the fact that people did protest in many ways in the past, sometimes in ways which involved great sacrifice to themselves.
So let us recognise here primarily the right to peaceful demonstration, and let us recognise that it will happen on a massive scale if the tour still goes ahead. But, on top of that, let us recognise that for the thousands of people who demonstrate there will be millions of people who object to the tour taking place.
I believe that, when the original invitation went out, when the original decision was made by the M.C.C. and the Cricket Council, the people who made the decision had no idea then—I do not mean this as a criticism of them; I say it because I believe it to be a fact, from what I have learned of the situation—of the extent of the opposition which would be raised in this country, opposition which has now been expressed by the Government, by the Churches, by the Trade Union Congress, by the Community Relations Commission, by hundreds of organisations of all kinds, and by many

1489
thousands of individuals who have written to them to ask them to think again.
I should like to underline an appeal which I know is going in writing from the Right Rev. David Sheppard to each individual member of the Cricket Council that they should have an early meeting to review this situation. As I understand it, they have no plans to meet between now and the date when the South Africans are due to arrive, and they should meet. This is something in which every individual member of the council has a great responsibility, and it should not be left to a small sub-committee. There should now be no doubt about the extent of the opposition to the tour, an opposition which has been reinforced this morning by the decision of the Sports Council that they really ought to have an early emergency meeting to discuss the matter. I believe that they should discuss it in the framework of the three concentric circles of responsibility defined this morning by the Sports Council: first, its effect on their own sport; secondly, its effect on sport in general; and, thirdly, its effect on the community as a whole. In all three contexts the arguments point the same way.
I do not want to go over arguments that have already been made, because I wish to be brief. If they were to confine themselves to the arguments about cricket alone, there are overwhelming reasons for abandoning the tour. In their own pamphlet defending the tour they speak of the long tradition of cricket as a multi-racial sport, and say:
"The Council feels that there is no need to emphasise the contribution made to the development of the game throughout the world with no thought of distinction between class, creed or colour. For many years teams from this country have visited West Indies, India, Pakistan and Ceylon and, more recently, the developing countries in Africa, such as Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania ".
If the proposed tour goes ahead there is a very real danger that this kind of contact will be eliminated. There is a real danger that international cricket will deteriorate into a game in which only white teams can play each other and only black teams can play each other. That would be a great tragedy for cricket.
I should like to come to the argument which has best been expressed by Mrs. Helen Suzman. We all respect the stand
1490
that she has taken on many issues in South Africa and we listen to what she says with great respect. We do not want to isolate the South Africans, but they have isolated themselves. They have brought their repugnant politics into sport in a way which the rest of the world cannot ignore. Whether it is in the Olympic Games, the Davis Cup or whatever context it may be, other countries have had to choose. The British cricket authorities have now to choose whether they will follow the South Africans into their self-imposed isolation or line up with the rest of the world.
The most serious argument is the potential danger to race relations in this country. We are now a multi-racial society. I speak as a Member of Parliament for a multi-racial constituency. For several years I have watched the barometer of racial feeling going up and down in my constituency. I believe that on the whole we are making progress in the right direction. People of different racial origins are now learning to live together and to respect each other.
In education we have the fastest progress. When I pass the playgrounds of primary and secondary schools in my constituency I see little black cockneys integrated in the community playing with their little white friends.
At work we are also making progress. In the bus garages, railway stations, hospitals and factories people of different colours are working together, and there is greater mutual friendship and respect than there was a few years ago.
In our social life progress is slower, but there is progress. But from time to
time events like this which get sensational publicity tend to bring out the latent bigotry of people who still have bigoted views on the subject. This is why the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) have been so damaging. If the tour takes place, events surrounding it will stir up the kind of bigotry and prejudice which otherwise is slowly becoming less of a force in our community. It is particularly disturbing that there should be the prospect of a Test Match at the Oval which is in the centre of an area with a large immigrant population.
One of the moments of truth in the whole argument was on "Panorama" a

1491
few weeks ago when representatives of the M.C.C. admitted that they had issued the invitation, and persisted with it, without taking any advice from people experienced in community relations. They have had that advice since. In particular, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) yesterday introduced to leading members of the Cricket Council a distinguished group of people in community relations, and they had no uncertain advice from them. If they originally made an error on the basis of insufficient information, if it did not occur to them then to make those inquiries, to persist with the error now would be unforgiveable.
It should not be necessary for the Government to impose the cancellation of the tour. I suggest that, reinforced by the arguments that have been employed today, a clear message should go out from the majority of this House to the Cricket Council that it still has time to think again. We urge it to think again before it is too late.
5.25 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: We are debating this afternoon, not the policy of another country with which by and large we disagree, but a suggested specific action, exceptional in its character, and seeking to assess the consequences of it. After all, if we were to trade and maintain relations only with those countries whose policies we approve we should be living in a very shrunken community. Britain would be in danger of being a rather virtuous, but embarrassed and solitary wall-flower in the ballrooms of the world.
How many members of the United Nations, of the nations participating in the Olympic Games and the nations participating in the World Cup, practise in their political lives things of which we would wholly approve? There are countries all over the world practising varying degrees of totalitarianism whose systems are poles apart from ours. But we do not, either in our political or cultural and sporting life, play the Pharisee and draw the hem of our garment from them. Our practice is to maintain relations while refusing to endorse or approve their systems, and to hope that in so doing, slowly but steadily,
1492
we can propagate the ideas of liberty and the rule of law by which we are guided and sustained.
If it were otherwise, if absolute dissociation were the inevitable concomitant of disapproval, I echo the question: what is the Red Army Choir doing here? If it were right, as has been suggested, that visiting sportsmen and entertainers bear with them the imprint of their national policies, then that choir is here with the blood of Czechoslovakia still on its boots. But that choir is here and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not question it, because that is the practice that we have followed.
I do not believe that the selective application of this proposition of dissociation is made out by the application of purported Christian principle in this case. The arguments of bishops have been prayed in aid by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should like to quote part of a letter written by the Bishop of Peterborough which appeared in The Times on 1st May. There is not time to quote it in full, but I hope that hon. Members will read it in full. The Bishop said:
"We have a right to reject policies but not people…British policy, therefore, towards South Africa…should encourage every sort of personal contact in trade, cultural exchange, sport, science and education…We all need our minds and hearts changing in some way or other…The constant and militant assertion of righteous indignation is merely an indulgence which will certainly not bring about any Christian solution."
I find that a truer interpretation of Christian principle than some of the utterances of perhaps more publicised prelates.
Mrs. Anne Kerr Mrs. Anne Kerr rose—
Sir D. Walker-Smith: No. I always give way in a full day's debate, but I think it better not to in a short debate, if the hon. Lady would have the goodness to excuse me.
The principle and practice of apartheid has very few adherents in this country, and I am certainly not one of them. but that is not the issue that we are debating here. I believe, as my right hon. Friend has said, that the central issue here is nearer home, and it is this: are we to maintain in this country the rule of law and the rights of citizens, or are we to accept a position where

1493
resolute and aggressive minorities can impose their will and prevent the pursuit of lawful activities by their fellow citizens?
My right hon. Friend quoted The Times leader of today. May I recall to the House The Times leader of 2nd May, which said that what is at stake is
"the proposition that one section of people may, in what seems a good cause, forcibly impose their view on another section of people by unlawful means. That is to substitute mob rule for the rule of law."
The Times is right. Cancellation now, whatever may be said, would be hailed as a victory for minority threats and intimidation, and a proof of the power of what The Times calls mob rule. The example, once shown to be successful, would be followed on increasing scale and with intensifying vigour. We should have paid the danegeld and we should never get rid of the Dane.
Ministers must take their share of blame for bringing about this situation. Ministers have repeatedly stressed what they call the right to peaceful demonstration, without reference to the limitations on that right which necessarily apply in a free and orderly society. These limitations are recognised both by international convention and in English law. Among the restrictions specified in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are restrictions required for the prevention of disorder or crime, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others. Similarly, in English law limitations arise because of the rights of others and the remedies which others have in trespass, nuisance, and so on. Limitations arise from the law governing obstruction and from the law relating to riots and unlawful assembly, together with many statutory restrictions. All these restrictions derive from the same basic and proper principle, that the law seeks to give freedom for all, not licence to some to encroach upon and deny the rights of others.
Ministers have stressed the rights of demonstrators, and tended to ignore the rights of others.
Mr. Denis Howell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to give such a blanket impression. I have appeared on television on three occasions, and there
1494
and elsewhere I have stressed the importance of the two principles we uphold: first, the right to play games if people wish to; second, the right to peaceful dissent. I have always stressed both, and never ignored one.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am glad to hear that.
Mr. Howell: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said the same thing on several occasions.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am glad to hear that. I did not see the hon. Gentleman's television performances.
Mr. John Mendelson: My hon. Friend said it today.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am referring to the record to date. It was not the hon. Gentleman that I had primarily in mind, and I say to the House that the interpretation which has gone forward has stressed the one, rather than the other, and, rightly or wrongly, has been widely interpreted as an invitation and a licence to demonstrate.
Mr. Howell: Which Ministers have taken that line of action?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The Prime Minister for one.
Mr. Howell: Perhaps I might refer to what my right hon. Friend said at col. 1049 on 28th April. He made a point about peaceful demonstrations, and he quoted his words on an earlier occasion, which he does sometimes. He reminded the House that on 16th April he had said:
"all of us can demonstrate our detestation of apartheid in peaceful ways in a peaceful country. There is no justification whatever for breaking the law….".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1568.1
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Peter Hordern: Perhaps I might remind the House of what the Prime Minister said in his television broadcast. He said that the South Africans had put themselves beyond the pale. He also said that they had made an ill-judged decision. If those two points are taken in conjunction with his views expressed on television, does not that represent a measure of incitement?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The point I am making is that in these utterances there has been no clear expression of the limitations which the law places on what has been said to be an unqualified right of peaceful demonstration. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman must know, as we all do, that these demonstrations will not be peaceable in the event. There are too many elements resolved that they should not be, because behind the respectable element—the politicians, the pamphleteers the prelates, and so on—is the ugly reality of the anti-social element, the thugs, the hooligans, the anarchists and the criminals who injured 68 policemen in Grosvenor Square and are probably waiting to do the same again.
If police or citizens are damaged in these demonstrations or riots to come, if property is damaged, or lives forfeited, the Government will bear their share of responsibility. It is the duty of Government to maintain public order and to see that lawful activities can be lawfully pursued. If the Government feel that they cannot do that; if they feel that the Frankenstein which has been created cannot be controlled they should take the responsibility, as my right hon. Friend has said, of cancelling the tour and justifying their actions to the nation if they can. But they should not take that action unless and until they have exercised the powers which the law gives them, in particular the powers under the Public Order Act, 1936.
I have today by Parliamentary Question asked the Home Secretary to make an Order prohibiting for three months the holding of processions designed to disrupt or prevent the lawful activities of citizens or to molest or intimidate those participating in them or the general public. If the Government wish to maintain the rule of order and of law, and to prevent injury to police and citizens alike, that is their duty.
Finally, may I say a few words in the context of the Commonwealth Games. I have sympathy for and understanding with the point of view of many of these countries which are making this request. Indeed, I have pleasant relations—political, professional and social—with people in many of these countries. Nevertheless, though we would instinctively like to comply with a request coming from such
1496
a source, I do not believe that this is a request with which we can properly comply. In asking us to sacrifice the rule of law and the rights of citizens to pursue lawful activities, they are asking what we cannot give.
We of this generation cannot yield those principles which lie at the very heart of the Commonwealth today, because they are not ours to yield. They are principles that we have inherited from the labours and fortitude of our forefathers and which we in turn hold on trust to pass on unimpaired. The rule of law is at the heart of this matter, and it is one which we in this House should be resolved to uphold.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Lipton: My constituency lies next to the Oval. It consists of many thousands of coloured British citizens. I do not think that any of them would be impressed by the purely legalistic arguments which have just been adduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). He thought that he was addressing the Court of Appeal. If he had been, he would have lost his case. The carefully typed brief which he has just read to us will carry no weight with the people who are vitally interested in the problems that we are discussing.
I would like to have heard from any hon. Member opposite some kind of appeal to the Cricket Council to reconsider its decision. We have not yet had a word from the benches opposite suggesting that, in all the circumstances, it might be a good idea for the Cricket Council to reconsider its decision.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lipton: No. I refuse to give way.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman implied that if this cricket tour did not take place that would be a concession to mob rule. I reject that allegation utterly. I refuse to allow the opinions of so many thousands of my constituents to be regarded as mob rule. My constituents are not mobsters, hooligans, gangsters or thugs. But they object to the South African cricket team playing at the Oval.
It may be that the rule of law can be maintained if the Commissioner of Police

1497
for the Metropolis brings in 6,000 or 7,000 police. But, for the sake of a cricket match, is it worth while employing all this force to enable a function to take place which is loathed by many thousands of law-abiding citizens?
I am not concerned with the philosophical disquisitions which have come from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. All I want to emphasise is that ordinary, decent, law-abiding people object to this tour. I voiced my fears on the subject in a Motion which I put down on the Order Paper three months ago. No one took any notice of it at the time. The matter has now developed. All kinds of overtones and undertones have been introduced into the argument. People feel that they cannot recede from whatever position they have adopted without loss of face.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to regard it as a matter of little consequence that 12 out of 18 Commonwealth countries will not take part in the next Commonwealth Games. I regard that as quite serious. No one can tell me that we can intimidate them into taking part in the games. No one can argue that, because they refuse to take part in the games and the games will probably disappear from the face of the earth, this is a concession to the forces of misrule, disorder and lawlessness. The whole argument falls to the ground.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends, who have been spouting for generations past about the virtues of the Commonwealth and the British Empire, now say, "What the hell?" when 12 out of 18 Commonwealth countries refuse to have anything to do with the Commonwealth Games. They prate about law and order and give us these philosophical disquisitions which mean nothing to those countries for whom they have professed such a pathetic and touching regard.
All the arguments of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are hypocritical. I would respect their sincerity more if they addressed some kind of appeal to the Cricket Council. That is the acid test of whether they are sincere in their arguments. Instead, they are playing a dirty party political game. What they are trying to do is to get the Government
1498
to impose a ban on the entry of the South Africa team. They would love that, because they would be able to make political capital out of it.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that we
had to choose between two evils. He said that it would be evil to cancel the tour and that it would be evil to give way to the forces of mob rule and violence by asking the Cricket Council to climb down. Very well. We have to choose between the lesser of two evils. We have to decide what will be the least embarrassing long-term consequences of this unfortunate episode.
As a result of this debate, I hope that there will emerge from this House, as representing common sense, average public opinion, an appeal to the Cricket Council. We should not reproach the Council. We should point out that it is not too late, but that, taking into account developments since the invitation was issued, this House is of the opinion that the Cricket Council should reconsider its decision.
5.47 p.m
Sir Edward Boyle: Some weeks ago, I agreed to become a vice-chairman of the Fair Cricket Campaign. I did so because, as someone who utterly deplores and opposes violence and disorder, I had come reluctantly to the view that the South African cricket tour was likely to be bad for community relations in this country, bad for the future of cricket, bad for the future of sport generally, bad for the Commonwealth, and bad for law and order in Britain.
I came to that view reluctantly, for two reasons. The first, let me assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), is that I take seriously what he said today about the threat of unlawful force. The second, if the House will forgive my mentioning it, is that I happen to be a member of the M.C.C. and a cricket lover.
I first watched a South African Test side at Lord's about 35 years ago. That was the occasion when Bruce Mitchell and Cameron, as batsmen, and Balaskas, as a bowler, caused England a very heavy defeat. I have watched with pleasure every single South African side that has toured England since then.

1499
I have always believed that the links of sport, and not least those of cricket, were among the most valuable links binding the Commonwealth together. I remember an occasion when Mr. Harold Macmillan, as Prime Minister, was going to the West Indies. At the time, I was a junior Minister at the Treasury. A mesage came to my private office asking if, then and there, I could draft a passage on West Indian cricket for inclusion in one of Mr. Macmillan's speeches. I can recall the enthusiasm with which I wrote of some of the achievements of the three Ws—Weekes, Walcott and Worrell.
It is precisely those of us who value most the links which I have mentioned, who question most earnestly the wisdom of going ahead with the South African tour this summer. Many hon. Members believe that this summer will be unpleasant but that, somehow, we will get through and that international sport within the Commonwealth will then go on as before. I hope they are right, but I ask the House to seriously consider the possibility that it may not prove so simple as that. It would be tragic if one wrong decision now were to undo all the fine work which the M.C.C. has done over the years to promote integration in sport.
This is an apt moment to pay tribute to the work of the M.C.C., whose members are justly proud of what they have achieved. I also take this opportunity to thank personally the members of the M.C.C. and the Cricket Council for all the courtesy that has been shown by them to me and to other visitors who have discussed this matter with them recently.
Many of my hon. Friends feel that the initial decision to embark on this tour was probably wrong, but that it would be an equal or even bigger, mistake to call off the tour now. This is a sufficiently widely-held view for me to try to meet it; with this argument often goes, also, the view that if there is a danger to race relations, it comes from those who are threatening demonstrations rather than from the prospect of the tour itself.
There is, of course, something in this argument. Those, whoever they are, who advocate disruption and violence—or what is sometimes called "direct action"—are certainly harming race relations in this country. As one who in the past has profoundly admired Bishop Huddleston, I personally regretted what
1500
I would describe as his quibble over the distinction between "violence" and "direct action" in an article which he wrote some days ago. I certainly would not wish to identify myself with what has been written or spoken on this subject.
There are, indeed, some people in this country who do not want this tour to be stopped—they want it to go on as an excuse for disruption; and, even more, I would separate myself from them.
But when one has said this, I still believe that the actual presence of a white South African team in Britain for a period of 12 matches, a team chosen in accordance with the rules of a country in which integrated sport is positively against the law, must itself prove harmful to good community relations. I ask the House to consider this point most seriously.
We have to consider the total situation; the fact that there is a world race situation, with poverty and the tropical areas of the world so closely linked; the fact that the race situation in this country is still at a formative stage; and the fact that, on top of this, we may have the arrival of a white South African team chosen in accordance with the rules of a country where integrated sport is against the law. That combination can, in my view, only prove damaging to community relations in this country.
My belief—and on this I agree with the Minister—is that a tour of this kind seemed to make sense in 1960. It just made sense in 1965 but not now. There is nothing extreme or disruptive about holding the view that what seemed just tolerable in 1960 or 1965 no longer makes sense in 1970.
I am concerned about the danger of the polarisation of opinion in Britain this summer, with more and more hubbub coming from the extremists on both sides of the argument. We should remember that, at the very end of the tour, there will be the climax at the Oval, which is probably the most difficult area of the lot, from the point of view of community relations.
I say this on the basis, mainly, of what has been said to me by teachers and members of political parties who know this area well. For instance, whatever differences of party may exist, nobody will question that Alderman Mrs. Lena

1501
Townsend, as a former Chairman of the Inner London Education Authority, is highly knowledgeable about the state of the schools in Inner London.
The Fair Cricket Campaign has been, and still is, working for the cancellation of the tour. However, if we should fail, then we are equally committed to trying to minimise the effects that the tour will have. I emphasise that we have said clearly that we shall have no part whatever in encouraging violence in pursuit of the aims of the campaign.
There are many who want to see the tour cancelled, but will not wish to take part in any form of organised protest if the tour goes on. However, there is, I believe, a wide body of opinion in this country, including many people who are not naturally marchers or demonstrators, who will wish, in the event of the tour taking place, to take part in one orderly act of protest this summer.
It will be said—I believe that it has been said once today—that on these occasions the violent militants will always call the tune. I hope, given hard work and proper preparation, that this need not necessarily be so. I believe that one mark of a civilised community—the sort of community in which most of us in this House believe—is that, every now and then in our society, a larger section than usual should wish to express itself by means of peaceful protest, properly organised and, of course, in a suitable place.
This debate may seem, in the present conjuncture of world affairs, a rather high-powered debate to hold about a cricket tour. But this debate is not only about cricket. The issues raised by the South African tour do arouse genuine emotions among many people who simply cannot be written off as extremists or fanatics.
A number of hon. Members will not have agreed with some of my remarks, and I am grateful to the House for the very fair hearing that I have received. Of course, I recognise exactly what many of my hon. Friends feel when they point to the dangers of hypocrisy, and of judging by "double standards".
No hon. Member enjoys the experience, in what is likely to be his last speech in this House, of expressing disagreement
1502
with many of those who have been his close personal friends for a considerable number of years. Nevertheless, I must say, looking back on the past fortnight, that I do not regret having joined the Fair Cricket Campaign. And my last words in this debate—perhaps the last words I shall ever deliver in this House—are that I still believe that the wise and right decision would be, even now, not to go ahead with this tour.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: The whole House very greatly respects the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle). It is a great tragedy and a sad commentary on British politics today that he has perhaps made his final speech in the House and is being driven from politics—
Sir E. Boyle: No.
Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman is being driven from politics largely because of the race problem in his constituency.
Sir E. Boyle: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think it right to withdraw those words, which are quite untrue. I beg him to believe that there is absolutely no question of my being driven from my constituency. There is no truth whatever in that.
Mr. Hamilton: If what I have said is untrue, then, of course, I withdraw it. However, that is the impression that some of us have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Leave it there."] Some of us on this side of the House have the impression that there is an intolerant minority in his part of the country who are making his life in politics very hard to stand. The right hon. Gentleman's attitude to this problem has been wholly admirable and many people in all political parties in Britain will wish to pay tribute to him.
Most of the relevant arguments have already been put in this debate. I wish to put some which have not received a great deal of emphasis. One is the attempt by some hon. and right hon. Members opposite to pin on to Ministers of the Crown responsibility for what might happen as a consequence of this tour's going on.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. kin Macleod) and the right

1503
hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) have both sought to convey to the people that the Prime Minister has, by implication if not by direct speech, condoned, or sought to condone, disorder and violence which might result this summer. I shall quote from The Scotsman of 27th April, from an editorial which sums up the situation very fairly. This is not a newspaper normally sympathetic to this side of the House. This is what the editorial said:
"Mr. Hogg and Mr. Macleod have accused the Prime Minister of encouraging disorder. He has done nothing of the sort. His advice is more honest than the attitude of some Conservatives. Their position is to mouth disapproval and to pass by on the other side. But if apartheid is the evil thing they avow it to be, it should not be ignored."
The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) began his speech by saying that all hon. Members deplored apartheid. He was not in a position to see the faces of some of his hon. Friends behind him when he made that remark. I am not quite sure that it is true. When we look at the record of some hon. and right hon. Members opposite on the Rhodesian question and on this tour we begin to doubt just how many hon. Members opposite actually deplore apartheid and are carrying their deploring to its logical conclusion.
The right hon. Member for Barnet talked about bridge building. We have heard a lot about that aspect of the matter, but we have been trying to build bridges between ourselves and South Africa over the years. We have been playing cricket against teams from South Africa, selected on a racial basis, for years, in the hope—the vain hope, as it has transpired—that South Africa would see the error of her ways, but far from that happening South Africa has gone to further extremes.
We now have a régime in South Africa which is far worse than it was in 1948 although we have been trying to build bridges in sport and in other ways since that time. The time has come to try other methods. The only method we can use in sport is that of refusing to play against teams selected on a basis of racial discrimination.
It is wrong to assume that sport can be divorced from politics. It never has been. It is not divorced from politics in the Soviet Union, nor in South Africa,
1504
nor in this country. One can go to some Conservative golf clubs and find that politics or racial discrimination is not divorced from that sport. Let us not be mealy-mouthed about this. If this tour had been allowed to take place without any kind of objection being voiced in this country one can imagine what the South African Press would have made of that. It would have said that the British people were commending their policies. I do not think that we can afford to do that.
The Observer was right when it said:
"Isn't it unthinkable for the men in white flannels at Lords to talk about the importance of building bridges between the races if the direct result of that action is to provoke disorder and exacerbate the precarious harmony between the races in England."
The tour is also having very serious repercussions on the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh. Some of my colleagues in the House have pointed out that India, Pakistan and other coloured members of the Commonwealth have said that they will boycott the games if the tour goes on and they have described that as a form of blackmail but those Commonwealth countries have watched discrimination for so long in so many parts of the world that they are taking a stand, and everyone in the world is being compelled to take a stand, on a moral issue.
If they choose to boycott the Commonwealth Games that will be a very heavy price to pay for allowing a dozen games of cricket to take place behind barbed wire, with hundreds of policemen there to prevent trouble. That is a price no one ought to pay in this country. Not only would it jeopardise the Commonwealth Games, but the very future of the Commonwealth.
I know that some people regard the Commonwealth as a bit of romantic nonsense, but it is the best multi-racial organisation in the world today. It would be foolish to say that it is more important to play these white cricketers from South Africa than to save the future of the Commonwealth. I do not believe that they are evil or stupid men. I believe they have not recognised the national and international consequences of the decision they have taken. I do not believe it was their responsibility to do that. They were not equipped to do it.

1505
That is why I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that the Government themselves realise the political implications for race relations in this country, they realise the political implications for the Commonwealth and for the world, and if the Cricket Council is not prepared to take a decision to stop the tour the Government should do so. I do not believe that we should contract out of this moral responsibility. Let the party opposite make all the political capital it can out of that decision. I am quite prepared to defend that decision on the hustings during the election. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West said that there were probably no votes in recommending tackling child poverty, but, nevertheless, he would do it. He will not get the chance to do that, but it was a noble decision on his part.
The Government ought to be ready to say that if the Cricket Council is not prepared to listen to responsible hon. Members on either side of the House, to the churches and trade unions, the Government have a tremenedous moral responsibility to give the lead. If they do not, it becomes all the more incumbent on them to make sure that demonstrators such as the right hon. Member for Hands-worth and my right hon. Friend and marchers and protesters in their thousands can protest peaceably.
If the "hippies" and "skinheads", some of whom John Arlott said were prepared to come from Australia, use force against British demonstrators, our police should be used to prevent that kind of thing. Let nobody under-estimate the moral indignation that will make itself felt throughout the country if and when the tour takes place. I sincerely hope that it will not. I hope that the Government will have the guts to take action to stop it.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. David Steel: I shall make only a short intervention. I want to relate it to the question of the Commonwealth Games.
I greatly welcome the opening part of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), because the type of speech which I find increasingly difficult to listen to is that which
1506
begins, "I hate apartheid, but" and then casts the opposition to apartheid away in a throw-away line and goes on to spend a great deal of time saying that we should do nothing about it. Although I did not agree with the conclusions of the right hon. Member, I thought that he made perfectly clear—much clearer than many others do—where his detestation of apartheid lay.
This debate is not about the general policies of the South African Government nor it it aimed at singling out the South African Government for special condemnation. Where the logic of the right hon. Member for Barnet and others goes wrong is that they do not make precise analogies. What would we say if the Russian Government, who we have reason to suspect are persecuting their Jewish minority, said to us, "From now on the public policy of the Soviet Government is to regard all Jews as second-class inferior citizens; and as part of that policy visiting symphony orchestras may not include any Jewish players"? If the Soviet Government said that that was their policy, would we receive the Leningrad Symphony Orchestra at the Festival Hall? We would not. There is not one hon. Member who would defend such an invitation. That is the precise analogy.
That is what has happened in the case of the Government of South Africa. They said that they will not accept Basil d'Oliveira in South Africa. They have said that they will not accept Arthur Ashe. They have said that it is their public policy not to play sport on the terms on which most people and most countries accept that sport is played, but that selection for sporting tours is open to only one-fifth of the population, to a political and racial minority. Therefore, the South African Government have brought their particular form of politics into sport.
In inviting the South African team to come to Britain, we are, whether we like it or not, acquiescing in that policy if we agree that the team should come. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) talks about freedom under the law. There is not much freedom under the law as regards the selection of the South African team.

1507
At the time of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the whole House accepted tnat it would have been utterly wrong to allow the Red Army Choir to come here as a representative of the very organisation which was repressing Czechoslovakia at that time. There is a precedent for breaking the general rule, which I support, that sport and culture are useful bridges between countries of very different political and cultural views.
I said in my constituency in January, the week before the visit of the Springbok rugby team to my constituency, that I believe we would increasingly have to choose between racial and multi-racial sport. My one regret about the discussion now as to the future of the Commonwealth Games is that this debate has taken place much too late and that the participants in the games, the organisers of the games, and the Cricket Council should have faced this question of the Commonwealth Games being held at the same time as the cricket tour. The public discussion should have taken place earlier in the year instead of now, when it is much more difficult to persuade the Cricket Council to cancel the tour.
I admit that the Commonwealth Games organisers have been slow to recognise the dangers. A fortnight ago I was at the opening of the Commonwealth Games Stadium in Edinburgh. I spoke to Sir Herbert Brechin, Mr. Ross and Mr. Duncan. At that time they were very reluctant to make any representation to the Cricket Council on this question. I am delighted now at the strength of the representations, however belated they may be, that are coming forward and that the effect on the Commonwealth Games is being publicly recognised.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East referred to giving in to "resolute and aggressive minorities". Is the Sports Council of Great Britain a resolute and aggressive minority? Is the British Council of Churches a resolute and aggressive minority? Is the United Nations Association a resolute and aggressive minority? Are the leader writers of the Birmingham Post, The Scotsman and the Evening Standard—three newspapers I choose at random—resolute and aggressive minorities to whom we should not give in? We should seriously ask ourselves whether it is right that the tour should go on.
1508
I have been criticised in some newspapers, and by one Conservative Member of Parliament in the City of Edinburgh, for the part I have played. I want to answer this criticism, because I believe that any Member of Parliament, particularly one for the City of Edinburgh, should be quite clear where his duty lies at the moment. It is to help to get the cricket tour cancelled so that the Commonwealth Games may be a success for that city. I hope that we are not proceeding with the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh on the basis that they are the best tourist attraction we have been able to bring to the city for some time.
Certainly, this is not my basis for welcoming the Commonwealth Games there. It is a side effect that it is a very good thing for Edinburgh, for Scotland and for Great Britain; for we are acting as hosts to the Commonwealth Games. It is not just a tourist sideshow. It means something in terms of the Commonwealth as a whole and in terms of multi-racial sport.
I have thought all along that it is inconceivable that members of the Commonwealth countries and their sporting teams would ever accept the basic hypocrisy of public opinion and of sporting bodies in this country that we should say at one and the same time, "We believe in the Commonwealth. We believe in multi-racial sport. We are glad to welcome you to our shores. At the same time, down the road a different type of game will be played"—for one of the original cricket matches was to have been played just down the road—"because we have invited a team selected on political grounds from South Africa". Of course, people in Commonwealth countries were not going to accept that.
Other hon. Members may criticise me—I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is one of them—but I hope that they will not advance the proposition that Commonwealth Governments take their orders from the Liberal Party spokesman on Commonwealth affairs. That would be a ridiculous proposition. Much as I believe in the power of the Liberal Party, that would be more than a slight exaggeration. However, this is the line now being taken because it is politically convenient in some parts of

1509
Scotland. I hope that we shall hear no more of it.
I turn to the excellent speech made by the Minister for Sport. I must admit that I have changed my mind on one question, namely, the rô;le of the Government. It would be deeply repugnant if the Home Secretary had to use his powers to ban the immigration of the South African cricket team. Until a fortnight ago I regarded this as an absolute impossibility. I am not so sure now. I am prepared to say that I am changing my mind, just as I believe that we are asking the Cricket Council to change its mind on something else.
I have changed my mind because, if the Cricket Council fails in its responsibility it may well be, to use the much-hackneyed phrase, the lesser of two evils for the Home Secretary to intervene and to say that the damage to cricket, the damage to race relations, the damage to the Commonwealth Games, and the damage to law and order, is much more serious than the damage to the principle of non-interference in the admission of people to Britain.
I do not believe that the members of the Cricket Council are stupid. I do not believe that they are insensitive. I believe that they are fully aware of the dangers of what they are doing. However, I believe that they are frightened and worried men. They are afraid of being seen to do a volte face.
I understand this. None of us likes to be put in the position of changing plans that have been made. We should say to the members of the Cricket Council that they would be respected in all parts of the House if they now faced up to their responsibilities—because it is theirs, and not the Government's, in the first instance—and accepted the fact that the damage they would do if the tour went on would be very substantial indeed and that their duty clearly lies in meeting now and deciding, in the face of all the developments, that they should be men of courage and integrity and decide to call off the tour.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Frank Judd: It is a real privilege to follow the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel).
1510
I would like to emphasise that among many of us on this side of the House who are deeply concerned about what is at stake in the whole issue there is a great deal of sympathy for the members of the M.C.C. and the Cricket Council in their present predicament. We endorse the view that they are not wicked men and that they are not stupid. But we suggest that they find themselves at the centre of a political issue with far wider dimensions than they ever imagined when they first considered going ahead with the tour.
For everyone in the House who pauses to consider the political situation in Britain and the world as a whole it is without doubt true that one of the most explosive issues with which we are confronted is the issue of race relations. It is immediately clear that the issue cannot be treated in watertight compartments. There is not a separate problem of race relations in Britain, or in the United States or in Africa; the problem of race relations is international. What happens in any one society in terms of race relations inevitably has an immediate effect upon race relations in the political and social situation in other countries where the problem also exists.
It is obviously impossible to dissociate cricket from the general situation in South Africa. We must ask the leaders of the Cricket Council and the M.C.C. to consider for a moment how the tour will be interpreted if it goes ahead. By coloured British citizens and many others it will be seen, however honourable the intentions of the members of the Cricket Council, as an endorsement of racial prejudice and of a simply intolerable political system in the Republic of South Africa. In the Commonwealth and the world, whether justly or not, it will be seen as one more step by Britain towards siding, in effect, with the white minority in international society, and not making a stand for the principles which traditionally we have always attached to the dignity of man, irrespective of his colour and racial origin.
In South Africa, which I recently visited, I am convinced that it will be interpreted deliberately by Nationalist leaders as an endorsement by Britain of their political system, and among the majority of people, the black people, of South Africa it will also be interpreted in that way.

1511
The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in a very impressive speech, referred to Helen Suzman, for whom I, too, have a high regard. But I ask him and others to consider why she can still operate within the political context of South Africa. It is because whatever her immense courage, to which I pay tribute, she does not question the fundamental structure of South African society. It is not good enough, and it detracted from an otherwise very good speech, for the right hon. Gentleman to call in support the words of Helen Suzman. What we must call in support is the view of the majority of the people of South Africa, and 80 per cent. of them happen to be black. That majority, because it is black, have had no opportunity to express itself on this issue or any other.
As other hon. Members on both sides have said, it is absolutely true that there are among the white people of South Africa people who are even more courageous than Helen Suzman, and who, as a result of their courage, are finding themselves held incommunicado for interminable periods under house arrest, unable to see their friends. We should also listen to people of that degree of courage when asking how we should form our opinions in the present situation.
We must also examine the position of the South African Cricket Association. I am as convinced as anyone that within it there are some honourable and courageous men who hold very enlightened views on race relations. But by implication it is sometimes suggested that the South African Cricket Association is a sad prisoner of the political situation within the Republic of South Africa. It would not be proper in a debate like this to forget that before the law of apartheid was deliberately applied to sport within South Africa the South African Cricket Association voluntarily operated a policy of apartheid, which applied to selection, training, the use of club facilities and accessibility to matches by spectators. Black and white spectators were separated, the black spectators even sometimes being separated from the whites by barbed wire fences.
For me, cricket has epitomised all that is best in the British traditions of sport, and right at the centre of that sport
1512
and its tradition has been the concept of fair play. Four out of five people in South Africa are excluded from any opportunity of selection for cricket teams claiming to play in the name of South Africa simply because of their colour and racial origin. This is not fair, and it is certainly not sportsmanlike. If British cricketers go ahead and play with cricketers representing such a system they will, whatever their motives, be doing irreparable damage to the whole tradition of cricket in Britain. It is our duty to tell them this.
We must also examine, and we must ask the cricketers to examine, another price they are paying in terms of for the future of cricket. However good their intentions are, they must ask themselves whether the price paid for going ahead and insisting on playing the South African team is reasonable if it amounts to perhaps forgoing the possibility in the future of playing cricket with countries like India, Pakistan and the West Indies.
A great deal has been said in the debate about the Commonwealth Games. What my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, particularly about the meeting of the Sports Council this morning, was most impressive. Surely cricketers as sportsmen will have to consider even at this stage the price being paid by sport as a whole in this country.
I turn for a moment to the issue of law and order. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East has left the Chamber. I thought that he made a most irresponsible speech. If we are being objective in our examination of the situation we must, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said, ask ourselves whether the insistence of the Cricket Council and the M.C.C. on going ahead is not the provocation. We must understand and respect the fact that there are many people in this country who hold profound convictions on the issue and who find the whole concept of the tour going ahead immensely distasteful. They see it not just as a game of cricket but as a very direct and personal endorsement of the whole system of apartheid within South Africa.
Therefore, I join those who call upon the Cricket Council even at the eleventh hour to cancel the tour. I believe that by doing so it would save its reputation

1513
for wisdom and sportsmanship and gain immense respect. It is a decision that can only be made by the council; it would be quite improper for the Government to impose their will on it. Either we live in a mature, democratic society, or we do not. We know that if the tour unfortunately goes ahead there may well be a high cost to be paid, in terms of social disorder. No one is more sad about this than I am. It would be foolish to pretend that there are not minute sections of our community which will seize the opportunity presented by the tour as an opportunity for social disruption.
I believe that they will be people who are not really concerned about the issue of apartheid,as speakers on both sides of the House today have been. I want to leave them on one side because they are a social menace and a real enemy to everyone who opposes apartheid,and address myself to the sincere protesters who will be coming forward if the tour goes ahead. I suggest that these protesters must ask themselves three questions.
The first is whether they are primarily concerned with demonstrating the strength of their own personal feelings. This is a perfectly honourable objective if they wish to do so, but they must ask themselves honestly whether it is their overriding objective.
Secondly, they must ask themselves whether their overriding objective is to stop the tour irrespective of what may happen to be the majority viewpoint in Britain at the moment. Again, that is an arguable and, from their point of view, sincere objective, but they must be honest with themselves.
Thirdly, they must ask themselves whether their objective is what I believe to be the objective of most speakers in this debate—to insist that, if the tour goes ahead, those of us who find the concept, traditions and methods of apartheid fundamentally abhorrent must take the opportunity peacefully and through free argument and persuasion to try to draw into our support and our personal degree of commitment an even wider cross-section of the community than is already concerned.
1514
I believe that this third point is the overridingly important issue and that the first two points may actually be counterproductive in terms of the third. I ask the sincere protesters to examine this because, if they insist on imposing their will, however right their objective may be, morally, on the majority, irrespective of the view of that majority, they will be setting a very dangerous precedent in our political life and one which I do not believe any honest or responsible politician on either side could possibly endorse.
6.33 p.m.
Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor): Hon. Members on both sides have expressed differing views with great sincerity in this rather emotional debate. I say at once with what attention I listened to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle), with whom I share many things, including a love of cricket. I fancy that this evening I may share something else with him as well, since I, too, think it likely that this may be the last occasion on which I shall address the House. So, if I express views differing from his, I know that he will accept from me, because I have the highest regard for him, that I hold them with the same sincerity with which he holds his views.
First, I want to reinforce a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—that the South African cricket side due to come next month is not the first South African cricket side to come here against the background of apartheid.Many South African touring sides have come hitherto against that background and it is only because of the extreme increase in the tensions of race relations in Africa that we are in the trouble we are now.
I go further. The pages of Wisden's Cricketers' Alamanac are filled with the names of South African test players who have achieved records, and the world of cricket would be poorer without them. They have been wonderful players and I suspect that the side due to come next month is probably the best cricket side in the world at the moment.
Secondly, I dislike apartheid as much as anyone else. Apart from other things,

1515
it is unworkable in the long run. But it is not the only form of racial discrimination. In a way, I wish it were, but it is not. Asians are being evicted from East Africa, including Kenya. They are not allowed to grow as a separate community alongside Kenyans. They are being evicted, hounded out. That is racial discrimination of a bad kind. I find it difficult to understand how the Kenyans can be threatening that, if the South Africans come here, they will not take part in the Commonwealth Games. I seem to recall a parable about the mote and the beam. It surely does not lie in the hands of the Kenyans to throw that stone into other people's glass houses.
There are about 60 million untouchables in India and their plight is far worse than the worst phases or features of apartheid.But no one has ever dreamed of demonstrating about that to the Indian cricketers when they have come here. Again, the very few coloured immigrants allowed into Australia—those who are admitted for a period of training—have to return to their own countries, but no one in his senses would object to any Australian cricket side playing here because of that.
Thirdly,apartheid is not at all the only issue of conscience in the world. It is not the only example of man's inhumanity to his fellow creatures or of his cruelty or oppression. Many other dreadful things have happened and are happening which should arouse our consciences just as apartheid does, but we do not hear so much about them. But once one tries to victimise sportsmen, whether they be cricketers or athletes, because of the policies of the Government of their country of which one disapproves, one is victimising the wrong people.
For example, the Indian cricketers are not responsible for the untouchables and the Russian jockeys who rode several years ago in the Grand National could not be accused of being responsible for the treatment of Czechoslovakia. If any Chinese tennis players came to Wimbledon, no one could say they were responsible for the arrest of Mr. Anthony Grey.
Equally, no one can claim that the South African cricketers are responsible for apartheid.I strongly endorse the
1516
view, expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), that if we discriminate against sportsmen on political grounds, we are destroying an essential link between them and other people of other countries and other views.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend emphasise another point, because there is some double thinking about this. If apartheid is so abhorrent and so intolerable, I was expecting hon. Members opposite to make strong speeches urging the Government to have a complete trade embargo against South Africa—economic sanctions. I wonder why they did not. I think I know the answer. If economic sanctions were imposed against South Africa, our balance of payments would, to use a cricketing metaphor, " go for six ".
Millions of tons of British shipping goes round the Cape every year, particularly with the Suez Canal shut, and is dependent upon the good will, skills and services of the South African ports for safe passage. It would seem that where economics comes in, conscience goes out of the window. I have yet to hear any Minister or any bishop saying that apartheid is so abhorrent that we should sever all connections, economic or otherwise, with South Africa.
In my view the Prime Minister, in lending his authority to peaceful demonstrations, made a very unwise move indeed. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that demonstrations start peacefully, but very rarely end peacefully, and he also knows perfectly well there is a hard core of the demonstrators who do not mind in the least about cricket or apartheid;they are anxious only to start a row.
The issue now is that there are a great many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are really asking the Cricket Council to do something which the Government ought to do, but have not the courage to do. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues think the situation will be so bad in the coming months that he ought to send for the South African ambassador and explain to him that Britain is prepared to trade with South Africa, but not to play cricket with South Africa, that they are not at all certain whether they can

1517
marshal sufficient police to ensure the maintenance of law and order, that the " demos " have got us and that it would be better, on balance, to cancel the tour, so be it. But do not ask the Cricket Council to do something which the Government themselves are frightened of doing.
I very much hope that the tour will not be cancelled. If it is cancelled, it is the beginning of the end of international cricket, because every kind of political argument could be adduced to cancel almost every other tour. There could be demonstrations against the M.C.C. in India because of Britain's policy of controlled immigration. The same argument could be used in the West Indies. This is a game that two can play. This is why it was unwise of the Prime Minister to get on to that bandwagon. Not only would it be the beginning of the end of international cricket, but the beginning of the end of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) called freedom under the law, and that is serious indeed.
I have been a cricket fan all my life and I have played cricket on a very minor scale most of my life. I have played a good many games with hon. Members on both sides of the House, over many years, and thoroughly enjoyed it. We have played from 11.30 to 6.30, and we have drawn stumps and come back here and argued across the Floor of the House and gone into opposite Lobbies, and all that. Long may that continue. But is it too late to hope that we might, in this House, regain some sense of proportion and, incidentally, a sense of humour, and allow hundreds of thousands of cricket lovers to do what they want to do this summer, which is simply to watch 11 South African cricketers playing against 11 English cricketers at Lords, the Oval, Trent Bridge, or anywhere else?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan)The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan)rose—
Mr. Desmond Donnelly: On a point of order. I am making no complaints on my own behalf. The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) and the hon. and gallant
1518
Gentleman the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) have a prior claim to speak. I accept that you seek to preserve the balance, Mr. Speaker, but, on the other hand, during the debate, we have had a number of speeches, all perfectly sincere, from both sides of the House. On this side, we have had two speeches, quite sincere, supporting one particular point of view that is against the general consensus here. On the other side, all the speeches have been one-sided. I may or may not represent anybody—
Mr. Faulds: The hon. Member does not.
Mr. Donnelly: We shall see, but that is not the point.
The point, basically, is this, that if the House is to function efficiently in the future, regardless of who is here, then there should be a balance of points of view on all sides of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that not only Mr. Speaker, but the whole House, is aware of the principles which he has enunciated.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I shall not be more than two or three minutes, because I want to deal with only one limited aspect of what has been said.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) expressed the fear that cancellation of the tour would mean bowing to the forces of disorder—the phrase he used. The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that we must not yield to pressure, but the " we ", was not clear. I was not clear whether he meant the Government or the Cricket Council. The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) summed it up by saying that we should say to the South Africans, " We cannot marshal the police. The demos' have got us ".
My only purpose in rising is to remove that argument completely from the scene. There is no validity in it. Although, obviously, it will throw burdens on the police if they have to turn out at weekends and other occasions to deal with demonstrations, there need be no fear in anybody's mind that the police are incapable of handling this kind of demonstration. They will be fully able to do so.

1519
What is more, if, on the fringes of the demonstrations, there are the usual crowd of ruffians who wish to misuse the occasion in order to do other things, then it will be the duty of the police to prevent a breach of peace and to bring them before the courts.
It is important that this should be fully understood and that nothing should go out from this House which suggests that the police are incapable of handling this situation. What is more, chief constables have represented to me that they would not themselves welcome any attempt by the Government to interfere with the right of demonstration and protest. I think, therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said, this lies now within the self-discipline of the demonstrators as to how these demonstrations shall pass off. I hope to have more to say about that a little later, but it is important to make this simple point for this purpose.
There seems to be a lurking belief that I detected in the Cricket Council when it came to see me that it is a lonely band of heroes standing against the darkening tide of lawlessness. I can relieve the Council of that burden. There is no need for it to feel that in any way at all. It is not required to demonstrate that lawlessness will not prevail in this country by going on with the tour. The real issue here is not the issue of law and order. I rely, as I have done on a previous significant occasion, on the good sense and the long traditions of the British people in the matter of these kinds of demonstration to ensure that we shall do again as we did last time—set an example to the whole world in the manner in which we can express our detestation of the particular issues that concern the South African cricketers.
I have no doubt at all about that. Let us put the responsibility firmly where it belongs. What we are discussing here is the judgment of the Cricket Council in inviting the team here in the face of an unparalleled crescendo of opposition. It cannot be pressurised into abandoning the tour. No one need stand up against that pressurisation for its own sake. When I hear the list of organisations who oppose the tour, when I consider the possible damage that could be done,
1520
on which I do not want to dilate this evening because it has been argued by other hon. Members much more eloquently than I, I repeat to the Cricket Council that it is for it to consider, against the general background of what has been said, whether its judgment to proceed with this tour is right.
What I fear is that there will be damage done to racial relations and other matters. But I have to weigh that, in the discharge of my duties, against imposing my judgment that the damage to be done is so grave that I should interfere with the traditional rights of people to carry on a lawful pursuit, even though it is an unpopular pursuit. So far, I have reached the conclusion it would not be right to do that. I still adhere to that view. There is a conflict of rights, a conflict of feelings here.
I believe that that is correct and that it is not unfair to throw the responsibility upon the Cricket Council. It invited the South Africans; it can uninvite them if it chooses to do so. If it does. I promise the Council this: no one will construe it, because he will not be correct, to mean that the Council will be bowing to the forces of lawlessness or disorder, or the demonstrators in this country.
6.50 p.m.
Mr. Desmond Donnelly: May I make an improper suggestion? May I waive my claim in favour of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that.
Mr. Donnelly: Most of the debate has been extremely well conducted. Whatever the strength of our feelings, whatever the arguments advanced, there has been a great deal of sincerity—[Interruption.]on both sides—Order! [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech and not usurp the functions of the Chair.
Mr. Donnelly: I felt that you were not quite hearing what was going on, Mr. Speaker.
Most of this debate has been conducted with a great deal of dignity but for one notable exception, namely, the hon.

1521
Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds). I wish him a long and successful career on the television screen, playing other people's parts.
Mr. Faulds: With his never-failing loyalty to members of his old party, the hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me notice that he would mention me. We all understand his hysterical need to be noticed because of his impending political extinction. If it gives him any delight to mention me in this debate to further his own publicity purposes he has my full agreement, because I am much better known than he is, and I am much more highly regarded throughout the country.
Mr. Donnelly: I come now to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker)—
Mr. Faulds: And I will be here a lot longer than the hon. Member.
Mr. Donnelly: I will be much briefer if hon. Gentlemen do not interrupt.
The right hon. Member quoted Bishop Huddleston, but he did not quote the Archbishop of York—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate has proceeded in an orderly fashion so far. It must continue to do so.
Mr. Donnelly: I am happy to quote Bishop Huddleston as well.
When I was speaking at the Cambridge Union, and the Foreign Secretary was a witness to this, Bishop Huddleston said that Russia and China were more democratic countries than this. Not only is the Foreign Secretary a witness to that, but so is the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and several hundreds of people. I will not quote Bishop Huddleston as my example on any issue of this nature.
My credentials for speaking in the debate are tenuous except for the following. The first is that I am an Anglo-Indian. I am the first member of my family to live in this country for over 100 years.
An Hon. Member: And the last.
Mr. Donnelly: I grew up playing with the children of Indian peasants. English is my second language. I am not a racialist In that Gallery above US—[HON. MEMBERS: " Order."]—running the 1970
1522
tour campaign, is another Anglo-Indian—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer, even indirectly, to the presence of strangers.
Mr. Donnelly: I am referring to him now indirectly. Mr. Ramon Subba Row is running the 1970 campaign fund and is responsible for much of its administration. He is also an Anglo-Indian. He has four English caps against South Africa. The person who has a complaint about this, more than anyone else is Mr. d'Oliveira and we know the dignity with which he has behaved and the pressures under which he has lived.
If I have any other credentials it is that I was privileged to serve with the 15th South African Squadron in the Desert Air Force, and I was proud to serve with it. I only wish that a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite had seen them in the mess and the way in which they behaved during those days when when they fought for freedom. I have some figures here. They might not interest many people, but they interest me. There were 211,123 and 123,000 non-Europeans, all volunteers, in the British forces during the war.
An Hon. Member: Where was Vorster?
Mr. Donnelly: I am not defending Mr. Vorster.
Out of all of this there were three South African Victoria Crosses, 108 Distinguished Service Orders, 37 Distinguished Service Crosses. 429 Distinguished Flying Crosses—I could go on, but the total comes to 7,114. If they were good enough to do that for us they are good enough to play cricket against us, or life has no meaning.
My next point is germane to the whole nature of the debate. It is why the
previous tour was cancelled, because of Mr. d'Oliviera's exclusion by the South African Government. I want to make it clear that it was not the South African Cricket Association, but was the South African Government. We may argue about the M.C.C. but it is not a matter for the House of Commons as to who should be chosen in a cricket team. In my view, having known Alec Bedser as one of the England selectors for 30 years, having known Colin Cowdrey for a number of years, I know that these are men of integrity.

1523
Is anyone here impugning their integrity? I am asking: is anyone here impugning Mr. Cowdrey's integrity? [HON. MEMBERS: " The hon. Member's integrity."] I will not even dream of asking for your protection from these Members, Mr. Speaker.
Another important point concerns the Minister for Sport—and he is a good chap. He fought hard against the election of the Prime Minister, along with me. This is what he said on the radio on 25th May, 1969:
" Well. the Government's view is that if it is possible for the citizens of this country to visit South Africa or South Africans to visit this country, then sportsmen cannot be treated differently nor would I wish them to be treated differently from the rest of the community."
That is a very different statement from what we have had today.
There is the whole strategic question which lies behind this. There is South Africa's position as the half-way house of the world. What would happen to British trade if we did not have the Cape route? A total of 85 per cent. of the oil that comes into my constituency, which is the largest oil port in the United Kingdom, comes via the Cape route. A total of 58 per cent. of the United Kingdom oil comes via that route. Behind all this is an attack on South Africa itself, a damaging attack against Western relations, and if I have one word of advice to the Cricket Council it is not to surrender to mob rule, to hooliganism, to the cranks, to the birdbrains and the self-important sanctimonious prigs.
It being three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order No. 9(Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.)
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: In view of the resolution adopted this morning by the Sports Council, and of the many eloquent appeals which have been made this afternoon to the Cricket Council, I beg to ask leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Motion is already time elapsed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HARE COURSING BILL
  Order for Second Reading.
  7.0 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The subject matter of the Bill is not new to the House. As long ago as 1925 a Bill with similar objectives got through its Committee stage but failed to secure a Third Reading from lack of Parliamentary time. More recently there have been Private Members' Bills aimed at prohibiting hare coursing in the last four Sessions of this Parliament. Because of the considerable Parliamentary and public interest aroused by the Bill introduced in January, 1967, by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), the Government thought that Parliament ought to have an opportunity of discussing the issue, although at that time the formal attitude of the Government was one of neutrality.
  Time was made available on 1st May, 1967. During the course of the debate most of the main considerations and controversies were ventilated, but the debate itself was not concluded. My hon. Friend reintroduced his Bill in the following Session but this made no progress, nor did a similar Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) in the next Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw) introduced his Hare Coursing and Deer Hunting Abolition Bill this Session and succeeded in putting it down for Second Reading, second in order of business following the Conservation of Seals Bill, on 12th December. Many of us thought then that there would be opportunity to reach a decision on the matter, but it was a Private Member's Bill with all the hazards involved.
  As regards the reasoned amendment which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), I am, of course, well aware that the British Field Sports Society has arranged for an inquiry to be made into hare coursing. But I understand that the inquiry is

  1525
  chiefly directed towards a re-examination of the rules and arrangements for hare coursing. Indeed, according to information given to us by the hon. Gentleman, the terms of reference of this body are to look at the conduct of coursing in modern farming conditions; adjustments in arrangements for stewarding and the general management of meetings; and any amendment to the existing rules. It is not an inquiry into the question whether or not competitive hare coursing should be prohibited. The Government do not, therefore, consider that the outcome of this inquiry will have any bearing on the principle whether or not competitive coursing, no matter how it is controlled, should be allowed to continue.
  Some hon. Members will probably remind the House that there has been something of a tradition with field sports and, indeed, other specific matters related to animal welfare for initiatives to be left to Private Members. The Conservation of Seals Bill is a good example. That tradition depends upon a certain reasonableness in the handling of opportunities for Parliamentary discussion, which has not been altogether evident in this case. Those who oppose the Bill have no reason to complain if today the matter is brought to debate, and by the Government.
  In the Government's view, competitive hare coursing involves an unacceptable degree of suffering to hares. We have decided that the only way of enabling Parliament to come to a decision on the issue is for the Government to introduce their own Bill. As the House will recall, this decision was announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 19th March.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put the case against hare coursing very succinctly when, in replying to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) on 2nd December, he referred to hare coursing as a barbarous anachronism. I will elaborate the issues which seem to me most relevant.
  First, I want to make it quite clear that no issue of pest control is involved in the so-called sport of hare coursing. I do not think that this is disputed
  even by those who support hare coursing. The
  1526
  Departmental Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals under the chairmanship of Mr. John Scott Henderson, which reported in 1951, indicated this very clearly in paragraph 274 of its report, the last sentence of which reads:
  "The principal object of all coursing is. however, undoubtedly sport and in our view cannot be regarded as a method of control."
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food confirms that coursing makes no contribution to the control of hares and, if abolished, would in no way add to farmers' problems.
  So the basic issue is whether competitive hare coursing involves a measure of
  cruelty which today is no longer acceptable. The Government have no doubt whatever that it does, and there is much evidence to suggest that this view is shared by the majority of people in this country. I am aware of course that
  those hares which get away may not even suffer; that is open to argument. Let us remember those that are caught and killed by the dogs. No one can dispute that these hares suffer.
  The Scott Henderson Report gives a lot of information and comment about the natural history of hares and the field sport of hare coursing. I have studied this with care. The committee approached the question whether or not a field sport is cruel on the following basis in paragraph 141:
  " It seems to us that public opinion will be swayed by reasonable.
  practicable and broad considerations and not by ethical arguments alone. An act causing unnecessary suffering should be judged by the standard adopted by
  average, reasonably-minded people and should be viewed objectively. We think
  that the public generally are not likely to want to abolish a sport which may involve an element of cruelty merely because that sport gives pleasure to the participants. We have, therefore, decided to base our recommendations on the degree of cruelty and all other material considerations which seem to us to be involved."
  The committee went on to say that it considered interference would be justified (a) in cases where the sport does not serve control, if there is more than a slight degree of suffering; (b) in cases where the sport contributes to control, if the amount of suffering inflicted is greater than would be involved in the case of alternative methods of control.
  The Scott Henderson Committee's analysis of the problem of hare coursing

  1527
  is not altogether easy to follow at all points, but the main argument seems to amount to this. On the one hand, the committee concluded that coursing involves no more suffering than the shooting of hares as ordinarily practised and, therefore, that the suffering involved in coursing did not constitute cruelty in so far as it was used as a method of control. This seems to have been the basis for the first part of the committee's recommendation No. 34:
  " The degree of cruelty involved in coursing is not sufficient to justify its prohibition."
  In my view that comment is of no significance because, as I have already said, it is generally accepted that competitive hare coursing does not contribute to pest control. Since this is so, then any degree of cruelty inflicted in coursing must be unacceptable to anyone who believes that animals should be humanely treated. Indeed, the committee roundly concluded in paragraph 280 that on the definition of cruelty they had adopted competitive hare coursing—the Waterloo Cup meeting at Altcar was mentioned as an example—caused unnecessary suffering to hares and paragraph 280 says:
  " Consequently, the suffering which is caused to hares coursed at such meetings comes within the definition of cruelty which we have adopted."
  However, at this point the logic of the committee's thinking seems to have disintegrated for, surprisingly, the Committee decided to:
  " make no recommendation about coursing ".
  That is the second part of recommendation No. 34.
  It seems to me that the committee hovered on the brink of condemning competitive coursing and coming out with a firm recommendation that it should be prohibited, and then drew back and settled for what might be described as a neutral attitude. My own view, and that now taken by the Government, is very far from neutral. We find the whole idea of competitive coursing repugnant.
  It is now very nearly 20 years since the Scott Henderson Committee reported, and it is clear that whatever public opinion was towards the sport at the time, it is now no longer prepared to tolerate this activity purely in the interests of sport.
  I appreciate, of course, that there are some with whom the Government's resolve to prohibit this activity will be
  1528
  unpopular. There will be arguments about urban pressures on rural pleasures. The
  yeoman's call to the world of the hunter and the survival of the fittest. The
  majority versus the minority. Of course with the passage of time the proportion of the population with a rural background—or indeed rural family connections—has diminished with industrialisation. Politically it would now be no longer possible, as it was a hundred years ago to make an emotional appeal to a recently urbanised working class with the cry of " an acre and a cow " [An HON. MEMBER: " Three acres "] All right, three acres and a cow.
  In my own part of Leeds, as has been so accurately portrayed by Richard Hoggart in The Uses of Literacy,the days of an urban population with their strong rural background are gone. Even so, this Bill is not an anti-rural measure designed by urbanites who shut their eyes to the realities of nature or the needs of agriculture. I have already referred to this point when discussing the particular question of control. It is equally true in the wider context of rural life. This Bill is concerned with competitive hare coursing.
  I would commend to the opponents of the Bill the innocuous racing of greyhounds after an artificial hare which has a wide following. This is the civilised " model ", not the killing of hares for the satisfaction of the owners and followers of hounds. The Government's view is that in a civilised society in the latter part of the twentieth century competitive hare coursing has no place, and the sooner it is relegated to join those other cruel and discredited sports which are now defunct the better.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman said that it was not an attack on country pursuits. Why are not the Government legislating on all the other field sports on this occasion? Why have they singled out this one?
  Mr. Rees: The point I am making is that there is no control involved. This is related to competitive hare coursing. I will come to the wider question of hares in a moment. The Government have no intention of dealing with field sports as a whole. I am dealing with competitive hare coursing. If the hon. Gentleman has a great interest in this matter, then if he

  1529
  is here in the next Parliament he will no doubt do something to abolish fox hunting if that is what he has in mind.
  Representations have been made to me that salukis are deserving of special consideration in relation to any ban on coursing. I have been told that the saluki is a most ancient breed and one of the few in this country that has suffered no hereditary defects. It is claimed that if this pure strain is to be maintained it is essential to course the dogs against hares to select for breeding those which display the right characteristics. I do not dispute that the breed is one which has existed for thousands of years, but the introduction of salukis into this country seems to be of comparatively recent origin. My information is that these dogs were first bred in this country towards the end of the last century and that regular coursing meetings for salukis have been held only during the last 15 years or so.
  I am not persuaded by the argument that coursing is essential to maintaining the quality of the breed. I am sure that when hare coursing becomes illegal saluki breeders will not be unequal to the task of devising alternative methods for determining whether a particular dog has the right characteristics to be used for breeding. In any case if, as the Government maintain, coursing involves an unacceptable degree of suffering to hares, that proposition holds good irrespective of the breed of dog used against the hare. It matters nothing to the hare whether it is savaged by greyhounds, salukis or other coursing dogs.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: There is nothing in the Bill to save the hare in this respect. Hares can be coursed with salukis as long as it is not done competitively. This can be done to come to a judgment as to which dog to breed from.
  Mr. Rees: I thank my hon. and learned Friend. That is precisely the point I was making. The whole point of the Bill is against competitive hare coursing, with people standing around, with bookies present, enjoying the destroying of hares. That is the point which has been made in various debates which have taken place over the years. [Interruption.] I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have had representations about this
  1530
  matter and amicable discussions with various interests, and I understand there is betting on the courses.
  An Hon. Member: There used to be 10 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House debates better when it debates in a conventional way.
  Mr. Rees: That is the information I have been given by the interests concerned.
  I turn to the Bill itself. Basically the Bill serves the same objects as that originally introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). However, we have amended the drafting somewhat by omitting in the definition of "hare coursing the reference to steps being taken before the dogs are released
  " to bring those dogs and that hare within sight of each other ".
  This might have been taken to imply that it is necessary for the hare to see the dogs as well as for the dogs to see the hare. As this is not an essential element of the type of coursing we wish to put down, we felt it unnecessary to define coursing. The meaning of the verb " to course " is to pursue by sight. Therefore it would not be possible to commence to course a hare unless the dogs could see it. We have also modified the penalty provisions in order to avoid
  introducing short terms of imprisonment which are not in line with current penal policy. To compensate for this, the fines have been increased.
  The Bill is confined in scope to the single issue of competitive hare coursing. The purpose of Clause 1 is to prohibit the coursing—that means pursuit by sight—of a hare by two or more dogs in a competition where the essential object is to compare the relative coursing abilities of those dogs. It is not the Government's purpose in this Bill to make illegal the hunting of hares with beagles or harriers; nor to interfere with the right of a farmer to set his dog after a hare where the object is to catch and kill the hare for control purposes. As I have said, the sole object of this Bill is to put down coursing where the essential object is to compare the relative merits of two or more dogs placed in competitive pursuit of a hare.
  Mr. Timothy Kitson: What happens if a farmer sets two of his dogs after a hare?
  Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill, he will see that it does not come under the heading of competitive hare coursing. Some hon. Members may be wondering why the Bill refers to the coursing of a hare by two or more dogs and does not make it unlawful to course a hare with a single dog, or to course species other than hares. The reason is that we are legislating for the situation which now exists. Coursing with a single dog is not a feature of present coursing practice, and it is difficult to see how the respective coursing abilities of different dogs could be effectively compared by such methods.
  The Bill follows the general pattern of other animal welfare legislation by providing no specific enforcement provisions. Any person or organisation will be free to initiate proceedings in respect of any incident where they have reason to believe an offence has been committed, or to report the matter to the police who would decide whether or not to prosecute in the light of the evidence available. I have no doubt that voluntary organisations like the R.S.P.C.A. play a leading part in seeking evidence of offences and bringing the offenders to justice. This system works satisfactorily in the case of other animal welfare legislation—for example, the Protection of Animals Act, 1911—and the Government do not anticipate any widespread evasion of the prohibition being successfully pursued.
  Some may argue that to ban competitive coursing will only result in the so-called " sport " going underground. This may occur to a limited extent for a time after the prohibition on coursing becomes effective, but in our view it is unlikely to flourish for long. It would have to be a hole and corner affair; judging would be difficult, there would be but a handful, or more likely no spectators to encourage the activity, and without the major events in which the dogs could be entered there would be little incentive to continue training coursing dogs. If a person is determined to evade the law he may for a time manage to do so; but because cases might occur of persons breaking the law, certainly that is not an
  1532
  argument in favour of doing nothing. If that were so, we should have no laws at all.
  Clause 2 is largely technical. Subsection (3) allows a year's grace before the prohibition on coursing becomes effective. Representations have been made to the Government that some people—a figure of no more than 70 was quoted—are wholly dependent for their livelihood on training or caring for greyhounds and other breeds of dog kept exclusively for coursing. Although the number involved is relatively small, the Government have, in their view, made allowance for a period during which coursing can be run down and those whose employment is affected can find alternative work.
  In the Government's view, there is no doubt whatever that the so-called sport of competitive hare coursing involves a degree of cruelty that cannot be tolerated in this day and age. I am sure the vast majority of Members of this House and the public would agree and wholeheartedly support the Government's action in bringing forward this Bill.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make two announcements?
  The first is that I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) and a number of his hon. Friends—
  That this House declines, in advance of the Report of the Stable Committee, which with the knowledge of the Home Office is conducting an inquiry into the sport of coursing, to give a Second Reading to a Bill which is not due to come into force for 12 months.
  That will not limit the debate in any way.
  The second is that, so far, 25 hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak in this debate.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: We are obliged to the Joint Under-Secretary. I confess that I lost touch with his argument about the salukis, but at least he has discharged what was a very difficult task agreeably and in a manner that we on this side of the House have come to expect of him.
  I have a high regard for the Home Office under any dispensation, and I am

  1533
  sorry to find this great Department of State caught up in a Bill like this. I suspect that it may be a little sorry, too, and perhaps a little embarrassed. It is not alone because, whatever the Bill may do for hares, I fear that it will not, as some hon. Members hope, display the House of Commons in a very distinguished light.
  I understand very well the dilemma of some of my hon. Friends and possibly of some hon. Members opposite. They may well have doubts no less strong than mine whether this is wise legislation for a Government. Other things being equal, they might wish to intimate that in the Lobbies. But they are not quite equal. Some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite know of friends, supporters and correspondents who have been led sincerely to believe that we are dealing, as the hon. Gentleman has said, with a cruel and beastly practice and that this Bill will be a good day's work. These people will not be easily convinced otherwise by the wider considerations to which the House ought now to turn its mind.
  I know all about the difficulties and pressures. I know them well enough. All that I can say to my hon. Friends who feel in difficulty is that they have one great advantage. On this side of the House, we shall have a free vote. I understand that other arrangements may prevail elsewhere. My hon. Friends are free to do as they please. They will suffer no assault on their consciences from me.
  I want only to say as fairly as I can what troubles me about the Bill. I hold nothing whatever against the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) or the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw). I congratulate them warmly. In their place, I would regard this Bill as a triumph, which for them it is. But there is a world of difference between a Private Member's Bill for any purpose and a Government Measure of this kind, brought along in this way.
  Part of the Minister's argument was that we are dealing with a matter so serious and urgent, a pastime so damnable and such a threat to public decency that it demands action on these lines. In a sense, I wish that I felt that to be true. What I fear has happened is that we have been caught up in a tide of emotion and anger—alas, even of hatred
  1534
  —generated against those who course hares.
  The House of Commons ought not to allow that to happen. Certainly, it is part of our duty to have regard to and to respond to popular feelings and to give them expression, for animals as much as for anything else. But we owe another duty, and it is to make a level judgment which is above certain prejudices and patterns. After all, that is part of our raison d'être.
  I turn now to the Bill. One of its palpable weaknesses is its selectivity. It is still not clear to me why the Government have changed their view from that which they held three years ago. In May, 1967, when the House was considering the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Walton, the then Minister of State, Home Office, said that the Government's attitude at that stage was one of neutrality. Now the Government see fit to bring in this Bill of their own, and I cannot understand why. To my knowledge, there has been no serious study of this matter since the Scott Henderson Report in 1951. Now, Mr. Owen Stable has been engaged at the request of the British Field Sports Society to study the rules of conduct for coursing. That was a move which was welcomed at the time by a Home Office Minister, despite what the Joint Under-Secretary said today.
  A few hours ago, the Minister for Sport said, on another issue, that the Government ought not to interfere in matters for which sport is responsible. I could hardly believe my ears. The British Field Sports Society has done precisely what the Government wished the Cricket Council to do. It has taken action on behalf of the sport. Yet, without awaiting Mr. Owen Stable's report, the Government have brought in this Bill.
  The words of the Minister for Sport entitle me to say that this is a Bill of no principle. Certainly, there is a case, as was mentioned in 1967, for bringing to bear on field sports the Protection of Animals Act to ensure, if possible, that all these sports are governed by rules, as most are already. That is probably very difficult, but surely that is the proper role for Government. The Under-Secretary said that the Government have no intention of acting any further in this sphere. What is indefensible is the

  1535
  selection of one sport by the Government. In my view, we cannot be too careful before we legislate against tiny minorities.
  I have some knowledge of most field sports. Comparisons are difficult because emotions are involved. We all have emotions in this matter. For my part, I would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to shoot driven birds. To me, the glint of a pheasant in a wood in autumn is one part of the gifts of an English autumn. That is a personal and perhaps idiosyncratic view. I mention it apologetically to indicate that those of us who think that this Bill is bad, unnecessary and even dangerous are not ipso facto devoid of feeling for animal life.
  We are talking about hares, not pheasants. There seems to be no logic and no sound basis for a Bill which outlaws coursing but not harriers and beagles. I have run with beagles quite often. Beagles look less rapine than greyhounds, but they do not kill a hare as quickly or as painlessly on occasions. I have to say that as one who still participates.
  This issue of the degree of cruietly, the relationship to control about which the hon. Gentleman spoke and the relative cruelty of the shotgun, raises very difficult issues. It may be that some of my hon. Friends will speak about the Scott Henderson Report in this connection. I have no doubt that the shotgun, particularly the shotgun in unskilled hands, of which there are plenty today, causes more agony to wild animals than all the hounds and hunts put together. That is impossible to quantify. One can only offer a subjective judgment, that
  the sum total of suffering by hares will not be decreased by the Bill. Perhaps otherwise.
  On balance, I have come to the view that organised sport, disciplined by rules and sanctions, will in the end cause less suffering and cruelty than unlicensed, unsupervised private enterprise. I accept that it is the discipline, the rules, the uniform, the ritual and the buttons that to many are provocative. That is what they dislike about organised sport. They must judge whether, at root, they are seeking to promote the welfare of wild animals or to demote those who organise the pursuit of them for sport.
  1536
  We come to a gulf here which I find it impossible to bridge. Like many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Walton, I speak as a countryman. All my life I have had friends who have enjoyed various field sports, including coursing. Some hon. Members may say that their philosophy is misguided. Let us assume that they are right and that their philosophy is misguided. Even if that were true, there is no justification —and in their hearts hon. Gentlemen opposite kg-tow this—for the kind of abuse and vilification which has been piled on their heads by those opposed to field sports.
  I reflected on this not long ago when I attended a small dinner given by the Romney Marsh Coursing Club to farmers and shepherds. As I looked around the company I said to myself genuinely, " I wish that the hon. Member for Walton were here. He is a fair-minded man, a countryman, and he would see these people as they are; not as some would wish us to see them."
  Mr. Eric S. Heller: Probably some of my relatives.
  Mr. Deedes: That might be so.
  The Prime Minister—and the Under-Secretary mentioned it today—used the word " barbarous " the other day. That seemed to me, for reasons I will touch on, a misjudgment. I am suspicious of causes, such as the one represented by the Bill, which must call in aid such words as " barbaric ", " torture ", " sadism ", and so on. It suggests, to me at least, that the issue—and it is an intensely arguable issue—cannot be safely left to discussion on its merits. Moreover, this language is not confined to those who course hares.
  Like other hon. Members, I get a lot of literature about animal welfare and about intensive farming. In most of it we find the same emotive language, the same weasel words, the same shock treatment. No doubt some kinds of intensive farming are disturbing, but they do not justify hate campaigns against farmers or anybody else. This illustrates how very deep the gulf has become between some countrymen and the rest.
  It is true that rude and crude things go on in the countryside. I recall about a year ago a fellow coming to me with a complaint. He had been picnicking

  1537
  with his wife and young family, when, in an adjoining field, a bull had set about his arduous duties of procreation. " It is not a very nice thing, Mr. Deedes ", he said to me, " when your wife and children are exposed to that sort of thing." He had nothing against the farmer, but he felt that he should have put up a warning notice.
  Some rude and crude spectacles go on in our cities, too. Violence on human beings is in vogue—all power to the Home Secretary's elbow. There seems to be more than a smack of hypocrisy about a media which can present a film to
  inflame against hare coursing and then display and defend brutality, ostensibly because it is part of life, but in reality to push up the ratings. Glancing at some of the current offerings for public pleasure, those who course hares may wonder why they have been singled out for opprobrium and a Commons Whip.
  I think that for the Government and for the House of Commons other standards, other considerations, at least ought to weigh. We owe our democracy a better prospective. We must be prudent about the causes we espouse and act on in this way.
  Those who espouse the cause of children, for example, feel bitterly about this kind of campaign. They observe, as I do sadly, the comparative incomes of the R.S.P.C.A. —an excellent organisation—and the N.S.P.C.C. This is relevant, because this is the issue of perspective and proportions. With an income of £334,000 last year the National Society was left " in the red ". With an income of almost £900,000 the Royal Society ended the year with £157,000 in hand. Some of the injuries and cruelties inflicted on our children—we come across these cases in our political work—in our modern society are also very grievous. The National Society last year had to investigate, not isolated examples of cruelty and abuse, but 23,000, and some were heart-rending.
  So, in considering this little Bill, a sense of proportion comes not amiss. The fact is that we here today are victims of a relatively new development which is disturbing. It is the capacity of a minority in a modern society, saturated by the media, to fire a cause— it may be a good
  1538
  or a bad cause—into a blaze of furious emotion. We have a handful of people presented to us by some as people who might have helped to run Belsen, although engaged up to this point in something which is perfectly legal. One picture, one film, one sound track, can be manipulated to whip up a holocaust of anger and hatred against a small section. Alas, the technique is not limited to hares. We shall see this process set in motion, I fear, against other field sports.
  It is not clear to me, after today, on what principle the Government or this House will seek to draw the line. Some hon. Members will no doubt say that righteous anger against the wickedness of those who indulge in this sport is creditable. I fear that I cannot see it in that light. What has been said and propagated about this sport, and others. goes beyond what should happen in our proverbially tolerant society. Goodness knows, there is enough hatred about today.
  The Bishop of Southwark, I think it was, thinking about the Bill, said recently that the case against field sports had clearly been made out in the Scriptures. He may well be right. But I recall something also about living in love and charity with one's neighbour—an ideal to which every hon. Member subscribes just before a General Election.
  I do not think the campaigns of hate promote much good. They do not help this tolerant society of ours—this we all devoutly wish to see—to offer some sort of hope to a torn and bloody world. This, I venture to say, is where this House should be of some avail. If we are to be swung about, aroused to anger, emotion and passion on a matter of this kind by the forces of which I speak, our parliamentary democracy and our society will be grievously impaired.
  Finally, I come back to my hon. Friends who feel that they ought to support the Bill, for reasons which I fully comprehend. I repeat, they must do what they feel is right. They have heard, and will hear, no syllable of reproach from me. I beg them and the House only to bear in mind that on an occasion of this kind we have a wider duty, a wider responsibility, and a perspective to keep, and we shall be harshly judged by our manner of discharging it.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: We have had an excellent exposition of the case against the Bill, and I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), because no one this evening will put it better than he has done. It is a case which merits serious consideration, and that is what it must receive.
  Before I come to the Bill itself, I should like to give the House one or two quotations from another debate in this House. I have here a record of the debates of 1835 on the Cruelty to Animals Bill, during which Sir M. W. Ridley said:
  " I think that this is a most arbitrary and tyrannical Bill, and one conferring certain powers, which no previous Statute has ever given …I protest against what appears to me to be only a surreptitious code of interference to prevent the amusements of the poorer classes. In my opinion, the amusements of hunting, coursing, shooting, and fishing, are as much breaches of the Act as cock-fighting and bull-baiting. The former amusements are within reach of the higher classes only, and those individuals who have not the means to resort to them, avail themselves of the latter."
  The speech of the right hon. Member for Ashford contained echoes of that speech which I have just quoted. The right hon. Gentleman was saying, in effect, that this was a very dangerous Bill. I regard that as an echo from the previous debate.
  The question is asked, " Why is this confined to coursing? Why did you not take in everything? " That is another echo of 1835—" Why only cock-fighting and bull baiting? " Why did you not take in everything? Why not? It would have been excellent if they had done so. Had this happened, we would have been saved from having this debate this evening, and it would that much sooner have made Britain much more civilised.
  Mr. James Ramsden: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to be fair. I have done my homework on the Bull Baiting Bill, as I am sure he has. As a matter of history, the arguments advanced against bull-baiting had nothing to do with blood sports. It was a public order Bill, and that point made by Colonel Ridley and Mr. Roebuck was that the places where bull-baiting was done were those at which there was a grave risk of riot and public disorder.
  Mr. Heffer: Many reasons were put forward, and I could give the House many quotations, but I am arguing that the echoes of that debate are to be heard in the debate today. I think that the whole matter must be brought into proper perspective, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  I introduced what I thought was a very simple Bill, and I thought that it would be dealt with in a short space of time. I took the view that the overwhelming majority of the population would be in favour of it. I thought that we would mop it up on the way through and then get down to more serious business. I was absolutely innocent and totally naive. I did not fully understand the entrenched interests of hon. Members, most of whom are on the other side of the House. I predict that when this Bill goes through the House the other place will be full on the day appointed to debate hare coursing, much fuller on that occasion than on most others, for the simple reason that when one looks at the list of the people involved in hare coursing one finds that the list is comprised mainly of Lord this, Lord that, and so on.
  Those who argued during the previous debate that this sport was largely the pursuit of the upper classes was right, but now we hear another cry. We are told that it is the miners who are deeply disturbed, and that in some respects it is the working classes who want to continue with hare coursing. I have some information on this, too. I have letters from miners, organisations saying that they will be delighted when the Bill comes into operation.
  I am most gratified that my right hon. Friends have decided to introduce this as a Government Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw), and others who have been involved with me at various stages in trying to get this Measure introduced are delighted that the Government have decided to take this action. It is only a small Bill. but it is an important step towards establishing a fully civilised society in Britain.
  I think that my hon. Friends and I have made out the case for the Bill, and there is therefore no need to give countless examples of the cruelty to animals

  1541
  I think that this aspect is clearly understood by the majority of people. Yesterday I saw again the film made by the B.B.C. There was, too, the film which the I.T.V. showed in its sports arena. These films showed the overwhelming mass of people who do not know what goes on and what cruelty is involved in hare coursing.
  Members of the Old Yorkshire Coursing Club say that people who are raising this issue are Left-wing and other well-intentioned but misinformed M.P.s. This is a great Left-wing plot. It is all designed—
  Mr. William Wilson: Muscovites.
  Mr. Heffer: They are behind the whole thing. They are trying to take this sport away from the poorer classes so that they will rise up in revolt. I have never heard such nonsense in all my life. This is an amazing document containing so many wonderful statements that I do not know where to start, but one is:
  " The ` anti ' argument is always on the basis of ` How would you like it to happen to you?'. They attribute human emotions of imagination and anticipation to animals. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. As the years go by the sanctimonious sentimentality over the killing of animals seems to increase at the same rate as the consumption of meat."
  That is one gem from this document. If that is the best case that can be put up in defence of coursing, I imagine that the coursers must be most grateful to the right hon. Member for Ashford, because at least he put up an important case which has to be answered.
  The other argument is that it is only the urban dwellers who are opposed to coursing, that those who live in the country must be in favour of it. That is totally untrue. I have here some remarks from a letter which I received from the National Executive of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. Lord Collison, who was then general secretary, said:
  " Thank you for your letter regarding Mr. E. Heffer's Bill on the abolition of live hare coursing. The proposition was put before and discussed by my Executive Council when it met last week, and I am pleased to be able to inform you that they are in full support of the Bill and wish Mr. Heffer every success in its passage through Parliament."
  1542
  Does anyone suggest that the National Union of Agricultural Workers has nothing to do with the countryside? That would be absolute rubbish. The facts are that the union is made up entirely of country workers, and they are fully in support of the Bill.
  That needs to be stressed, apart from the letters which I have received from country people all over the country, who, in addition to those from urban areas, have expressed their full support for the abolition of live hare coursing—
  Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)rose—
  Mr. Heffer: No, it is not that I do not want to have interventions, but they prolong speeches and I wish to allow plenty of time for other hon. Members to speak.
  An Hon. Member: Get on with it.
  Mr. John Ellis: Do not be so rude.
  Mr. Heffer: I gather that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with what I am saying.
  I wish to turn to the British Field Sports Society's pamphlet on hare coursing. In the Amendment, which was not called, asking that there should not be a Second Reading now, is a reference to the report of the Stable Committee. For one moment, I thought that the Stable Committee would be entirely impartial, that it would include people in no way involved in hare coursing. But I discovered from the list of the British Field Sports Society's vice-presidents that the right hon. Mr. Justice Stable, P.C., M.C., was one of the vice-presidents—[An HON. MEMBER: " It is not the same man."] In that case, I am utterly wrong and I accept that it is not the right man. It was only a point in passing, because I thought that if that were the case the judge could hardly sit in judgment on this matter. If it is not so, I am delighted to hear it, but it is an interesting coincidence. Perhaps someone can tell me whether he is any relative. It is an interesting thing.
  But the important point was that I do not remember organisations opposed to hare coursing or neutral organisations being asked to give evidence to that committee. If they were, I certainly was never asked. At no time have I had any communication from this committee. I

  1543
  only learned of it by accident through the Press; I have never been approached. Therefore, I cannot believe that a committee which does not get evidence from people like myself, who are obviously opposed to hare coursing, should be given any real attention.
  Also, of course, it is not dealing with the whole question of whether hare coursing should continue, but only with the niceties of it. That in itself is an indication that pressure has been applied by people who are in opposition to hare coursing and that the hare coursers themselves have had to admit that they must do something to give coursing a better image.
  This pamphlet of the B.F.S.S. proves the case for abolition. On page 6, the report on hare coursing by the League Against Cruel Sports is analysed, with quotations. One such is:
  " Para. 1. ' Hares are often driven over a distance of a mile or more in the coursing field by some 60 or more men known as beaters.
  Comment: True."
  Hon. Members: Read on.
  Mr. Heifer: Of course—I have it underlined. I am glad that hon. Members have asked me to read on: I was hoping that they would. The quotation is:
  " True. But observe the subtle effect intended upon the uninitiated non-countryman of this sentence taken out of its proper context and placed in the leaflet following several pages of inflammatory build-up. What undertones of taskmasters, slavery and cruelty is the reader encouraged to find in the words ' driven ' and ' beaten '?"
  What they say is that hares are driven over a distance of a mile by men known as beaters. That implies to me nothing except that hares are forced along and that they call these men beaters, but this apparently is inflammatory.
  That shows clearly how emotive is the case of the hare coursers, how they are trying to suggest that we are not being fair. I could quote from this pamphlet at great length. They spend a good deal of time analysing a speech which I made when we had our previous debate. The suggestion is that I persistently misled—but misled what? The first time that I raised this in the House, I said.
  " I do not wish to overstate the case for the Bill. The purpose of coursing is not to kill
  1544
  the hare, and a great many hares escape. Under the rule of the National Coursing Club, it would be wrong if the field used were fenced in to prevent the escape of a hare."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 254.]
  That is hardly persistently misleading people. I clearly explained what happened and they know that I explained what happened, because I quoted the rules of the National Coursing Club. It is their document which is misleading and overstating their case, when it has any case at all.
  What exactly is the kill? Again, I quote from the National Coursing Club Rules:
  " The kill. Two points or in a descending scale in proportion to the degree of merit displayed in that kill, which may be of no value."
  I quoted the whole aspect.
  I went on:
  " The merit of the kill must be estimated according to whether a dog, by his own superior dash and skill, bears the hare; whether he picks her up through any little accidental circumstances favouring him, or whether she is turned into his mouth, as it were, by the other dog."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 7.]
  I quoted that from the rules of the National Coursing Club. I could not therefore have exaggerated the position.
  I made it perfectly clear that the kill was not essentially part of it but that it is in the rules of the club that points are awarded for the kill. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite deny that? Will they say that the kill is not an inherent part of the club's rules?
  I have evidence—we all have evidence —from the R.S.P.C.A., the League of Cruel Sports and many others who have become involved in this matter, not just because of their interest in those organisations but because they have visited various coursing meetings to discover the facts for themselves, to show that hares become involved in a living tug of war between dogs, that they are pulled apart by the dogs and that sometimes the stewards are not fast enough to get to them to prevent suffering.
  This is undoubtedly a cruel sport, if sport it be. It is a form of cruelty which we, in a civilised society, should not be prepared to accept in this day and age. I am not arguing whether or not we should extend legislation at this stage—I stress " at this stage "—further, to the whole question of blood sports. I would

  1545
  not cry if ultimately we abolished all blood sports in Britain. Indeed, I would not be ashamed to introduce a Measure to do that. I hope that the House—I am sure that it will—give the Bill every support.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. R. H. Turton: I am strongly against cruelty and when, two years ago, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who always approaches matters of this kind reasonably and takes a great deal of trouble in preparing his case, raised this matter, I felt that I should examine this coursing question more closely.
  I had never before been to a coursing meeting. I took an early opportunity of attending one in my constituency and I will tell the House exactly what I found and, from that, what is my personal attitude to the Bill. The meeting which I attended took place on farm land where normally hares are shot. There is an abundance of hares in this area and, prior to the meeting, there was no shooting of hares.
  During my visit there were 25 courses and about one-third of them resulted in the hares being killed. In every case that I saw, death was instantaneous. There was, however, one regrettable incident when a hare, trying to escape, came out of the course and got held up near a hedge by a crowd of people. The hounds quickly came on the scene, snapped at the hare, which died instantly. Having entered the coursing meeting quietly, the audience were not aware of my presence. They were, however, extremely concerned about this incident, because it was contrary to the rules.
  This shows that we must be careful in considering this matter. In other words, we should be concerned more with the regulation of this sport than with its abolition. That, I believe, is the right attitude for us to take towards coursing. After all, what is the alternative? Being a farmer, I assure the House that hares are a great problem to us, especially if myxomatosis has occurred on one's farm. Prior to myxomatosis the buck rabbit kept down the number of hares by killing off the young leverets, and not in a very kindly way. As a result of myxomatosis, the hare population has been increasing.
  1546
  I do not have coursing on my farms. However, in the late winter or early spring, usually about February, all the local farmers go out for a hare shoot on their adjoining farms. I find that the most unpleasant of the duties that I must undertake.
  In this connection, it is interesting to note that it was stated in paragraph 280 of the Scott Henderson Report:
  " Our conclusion about coursing is that it involves no more suffering than the shooting of hares as ordinarily practised. Indeed, there can be no comparison between the lingering death of a hare that is shot at and wounded and the quick death of a hare that is coursed and caught."
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact, accepted by the National Coursing Club and mentioned in the Scott Henderson Report, that coursing is no form of control. Thus, if he wants to keep the number of hares down, the alternative is not between coursing and shooting, because coursing does not operate as a method of control.
  Mr. Turton: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being led into a misapprehension as a result of the Minister's quotation from paragraph 274 of the Scott Henderson Report. It is true that, referring to Altcar the report says, in paragraph 274:
  " Consequently, coursing under National Coursing Club rules cannot be justified as a method of controlling hares, and we think that this applies in varying degrees to other meetings ".
  In the area about which I am speaking, in Yorkshire, coursing is held where hares are too numerous on the ground. It is, therefore—certainly for us—the alternative to shooting.
  Mr. Sheldon: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. The quotation which I had in mind was the one at the end of paragraph 274, which reads:
  " The principal object of all coursing is, however. undoubtedly sport and in our view it cannot be regarded as a method of conrol."
  That referred to " all " coursing and is accepted by the National Coursing Club, members of which I have met.
  Mr. Turton: I have quoted from paragraph 274 and, whatever Scott Henderson said, I assure the hon. Gentleman that

  1547
  it is regarded as a method of control. If we were to abolish coursing, the only way to keep down the number of hares would be by shooting. There is no alternative.
  Mr. Sheldon: Coursing is no alternative, either.
  Mr. Turton: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later to make his own speech, I hope standing. Sedentary interruptions only delay matters. I have given my point of view, and I stick to it.
  The hypocritical point of the Bill lies in the fact that at present there is far more cruelty to farm animals than at any time this century. What is the attitude of the Government towards that? The Scott Henderson Report says that coursing should be permitted and that there is no unnecessary cruelty in it. Some hon. Members may disagree with that view, but that is the finding of the committee.
  Mr. Christopher Soames appointed the Brambell Committee. It came down quite clearly on the terrible cruelty involved in certain aspects of intensive farming. What has been done about that? The Government have run away from carrying out the recommendations of the Brambell Report. It was a properly constituted committee and said that it was very cruel to have five battery hens in a cage and that the method of rearing veal calves was very cruel. Yet, without any proper inquiries into coursing, this Bill is brought forward in a hurried way.
  Mr. Ellis: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that some of us who are most concerned about the recommendations in the Brambell Report, and subscribe to them, are also supporters of the Bill.
  Mr. Turton: I know the worry of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis). I share his anxiety and worry. I am attacking the attitude of the Government to cruelty as proved by a committee. What did they do? [HON. MEMBERS: " Nothing."] They appointed the Hewer Committee. The hon. Member for Walton, unfortunately, fell into a mistake about the Stable Committee in suggesting that the Field Sports Society was represented on it, but what did the Government do about the Hewer Corn
  1548
  mittee? They put on it a large number of people who go in for intensive farming. When they got that report they watered down the Brambell Report. That hypocritical attitude on behalf of the Government I find very hard to defend.
  Let us try to be constructive. We want to try to wipe out unnecessary cruelty. Some people sincerely believe that coursing as practised under properly regulated conditions does not involve unnecessary cruelty. The object is not to kill the hare, certainly not to kill cruelly. The object is to test the ability of the greyhound to jink and do all the rest. The greyhound which actually kills the hare need not necessarily win the course.
  Mr. Heller Mr. Heller rose—
  Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for Walton made an appeal to hon. Members not to interrupt him. I have given way to him once. He has made his speech. Let us get as many hon. Members involved in the debate as we can without unnecessary interruption.
  Mr. Heffer: I should like to finish the quotation.
  Mr. Turton: The hon. Member wants to quote from the Brambell Report?
  Mr. Heffer: No, I want to quote from paragraph 280 of the Scott Henderson Report, which the right hon. Gentleman quoted. That report contradicts itself. At the end of the paragraph, it says:
  " But that obviously does not apply to the coursing that takes places at, for example, Altcar, where hares are far more numerous than they would be if their numbers were controlled by ordinary methods, and the same is probably true in varying degrees in other places. Consequently, the suffering which is cause to hares coursed at such meetings comes within the definition of cruelty which we have adopted."
  It is totally contradictory on the subject of cruelty.
  Mr. Turton The hon. Member expressed that view earlier. I think there is general concern that unnecessary cruelty to wild and domestic animals should be outlawed. Mr. Christopher Soames set up a committee to examine cruelty to farm animals. When that committee, the Brambell Committee, made recommendations, the Government should have made regulations and codes

  1549
  of practice to ensure that intensive farming was carried out under humane conditions.
  I recommend a similar policy over unnecessary cruelty to wild animals. Before the Bill goes further there should be an independent inquiry into coursing. Following that independent inquiry, regulations should be made on codes of conduct that must be practised to avoid unnecessary cruelty in the sport of coursing and other sports. That would be the correct way to deal with this matter.
  To follow an intervention made by the hon. Member for Walton, I think it very questionable that hares should be introduced into a certain area in order to be coursed. That to me is quite foreign to the kind of coursing which goes on in my native county, Yorkshire. I beg the House to take the correct line in dealing with unnecessary cruelty. Otherwise, people in the countryside, worried about the way in which domestic and wild animals are frequently cruelly treated, will regard the Government as hypocritical when they find they are rushing this Bill through at this particular time without any proper recent inquiry, with no attempt to regulate, nor even to wait for the report of the Stable Committee.
  It is a great pity that the Stable Committee was not a Government committee of inquiry and that it was left to the British Field Sports Society to inaugurate it. Is it too late for the Government to take over the work of the Stable Committee and find exactly what should be the codes of conduct for coursing? Unless the Government accept that correct line, I shall vote against the Bill.
  8.16 p.m.
  Mr. Arnold Shaw: A suggestion has been made that this is possibly the first of a series of Bills which might be introduced to abolish blood sports. I sincerely hope that that is so.
  I am grateful to the Government for introducing this Measure although it is only a part of the one which I introduced this Session. I look forward to the time when the other half will be introduced. I think it right that the Governmnt should introduce this Bill because it gives an opportunity for hare coursing to be dis
  1550
  cussed and not to be thwarted by clever Opposition Members who use the mechanism of our procedure to thwart the overwhelming wish of the House and the country.
  In the debate, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) on 1st May, 1967, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) said:
  " We know that one real danger would be if the Government were ever misguided enough to introduce their own Bill."
  He was absolutely right from his point of view. From our point of view we think that this is the beginning of a breakthrough which we have wanted for a long time. I am glad that the Government are so " misguided " and that the worst fears of the hon. Member are now being realised. The hon. Member also said:
  " All of us in the countryside who are connected with field sports regard this Bill as the thin end of hte wedge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 16–20.]
  That is quite right. It is the thin end of the wedge.
  Mr. David Gibson-Watt: Does that mean that the sport of fishing is also included?
  Mr. Shaw: That is a question of definition. We will deal with that when it arises. I am talking about blood sports. After all, there is a divergence of opinion here. We are dealing with what members of the Opposition call a sport, but what we on this side do not call a sport. We shall have to define each " sport " as it arises.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  Mr. Shaw: I have done so.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman has not.
  Mr. Shaw: I understand that many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: Chicken.
  Mr. Shaw: Very apt.
  The object of the Bill is simply to abolish a pursuit which is abhorrent to the great majority of the people. As the Prime Minister said recently, it is " a barbarous anachronism ".

  1551
  When my Bill was published, I received hundreds of letters from all over the country supporting it. The postbags of other hon. Members were also taxed. In answer to a Parliamentary Question, the Prime Minister admitted receiving more than 2,000 letters on the subject. The claim by the opponents of the Bill that this is a conflict between the townee and the countryman is not true. Practically all the letters I received came from the countryside.
  will read just one of those letters. It comes from Wadhurst, Sussex, and sums up the case:
  Dear Sir,
  Re coursing of hares. If Members of Parliament had heard the screams coming from the hares when being torn apart by two dogs like I have I do not think they would hesitate one moment whether coursing should be banned or not. I when a boy lived on a farm of a thousand acres. Coursing used to take place in the fields and on the marshes. I have seen and heard the hares screaming when caught by one dog and the other dog pulling the hare in the opposite direction. That goes on until someone catches up with them. One wonders if they are human beings sitting in Parliament that agree with coursing. I am aged 78 and I can still visualise the agony and pain those hares suffered. So many sit and judge on a subject which they know nothing about. That applies to Members of Parliament. I have seen coursing and I know."
  Support has come from many animal welfare organisations. I give special credit to the League Against Cruel Sports, which has carried on the campaign ceaselessly. Religious bodies of all denominations have added their voice to abolition. In January of this year a Gallup Poll on attitudes to blood sports showed an overwhelming majority in favour of parliamentary action to abolish hare coursing—62 per cent. voting for and 16 per cent. disapproving.
  A number of pamphlets and documents have been quoted. I shall quote from one which hon. Members have received recently. It is called "The Furry Few" and was written by Mr. P. A. Sweeney who purports to defend blood sports. If he is defending blood sports, they need another advocate. On page 14, he describes the way of the animal world, of the predator and the prey. He contrasts the wild animal which hunts for food that means survival with the domestic animal which hunts for the sake of it, and says:
  "Perhaps the most common examples of predator and prey familiar to urban people are the cat and the mouse. The feral mountain
  1552
  cat of Scotland is obliged to hunt for its food for survival, but the fat neutered cat in the comfort of a Chelsea flat will hunt and kill rodents, birds and fishes merely for the sake of the chase."
  That is true. Our ancestors hunted because they had to: they hunted for survival. Is it necessary in this day and age that the city gentleman, or, for that matter, the country gentleman should emulate the fat neutered tabby?
  What kind of people are these that defend sports such as these? Can we accept Mr. Sweeney's assertion that
  " coursing enthusiasts are among the most honourable people and sporting types"?
  I might be prepared to agree with that. I freely admit that I have not met such people. I have met people who have been coursing and who did not think much of it.
  Mr. Sweeney's description would hardly be shared by three housewives, members of
  the League Against Cruel Sports, who recently went to witness the Waterloo Cup meeting at Altcar. There, they were threatened with being dumped in a ditch if they interefered—not exacly the actions of sporting gentlemen.
  Mr. William Hickey, reported on that meeting at Altcar, wrote as follows in the Daily Express on Tuesday, 24th February:
  " Mr. Brian Cheetham, a 42-year-old Manchester cotton boss "—
  no doubt a country gentleman—
  " and a courser for 14 years, was in no doubt about what should be done with any demonstrators. 'I should not be sorry if they were put in a ditch of cold water', he said. 'They seem to protest for the sake of protesting. It is nonsense to say the sport is cruel."
  Coming closer to home, it is worth while examining the bona fides of some hon. Members. In doing so, I return to the debate—I almost said "that famous debate "—which took place on 12th December, 1969, the debate on the Conservation of Seals Bill. There are a number of hon. Members present who were here then. They will recall the filibuster designed to talk out my Deer Hunting and Hare Coursing Abolition Bill. They will also recall how vigorously hon. Members denied that the prolonged debate was due to their desire to talk out what was coming next. Some of them said that they were there to talk on the Conservation of Seals Bill or even oppose it.

  1553
  The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) told Mr. Speaker:
  "… some of us who are anxious to catch your eye are very much opposed to this Bill in detail and in principle …. and if we are successful in speaking later we will prove that point to your satisfaction and that of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1969; Vol. 793, c. 862.]
  To give him his due, he voted against the Bill, but it was rather a different story in Committee.
  It is true that the hon. Member raised some valid Committee points about the size of the bullet—I am not a countryman, and do not understand the difference between one sort of bullet and another —and whether one should aim at the seal when it was moving rapidly through the water or when it was stationary. But when the hon. Gentleman referred to his hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who sponsored the Bill, he used such words as
  " whose initiative in producing the Bill we all congratulate ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee C, 25th February, 1970; c. 13.]
  A little later he talked about the " admirable Bill ". Surely anyone opposed in detail and principle could hardly refer to the Bill as admirable.
  Mr. John Farr: One refers to one's colleagues' Bills as being admirable automatically, just as I refer to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw) as an hon. Gentleman by custom, automatically. Perhaps he would say something about the Third Reading debate and Report stage of the Conservation of Seals Bill on 17th April—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. It would be out of order to proceed with a discussion on that Bill.
  Mr. Farr: I follow your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman suggested that I had no interest in opposing the Second Reading of that Bill. I think that he will admit that both on Report and Third Reading I initiated debates on it.
  Mr. Shaw: I am prepared to accept that in certain detail the hon. Gentleman was opposed to the Bill, but I do not accept that anyone using phrases of the kind I have quoted can be opposed to it in principle.
  1554
  Now we come to the curious behaviour of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). [An HON. MEMBER: " Get on with it."] I am trying to get to those people who, in effect, are opposiing the Bill. On 6th November, 1969, I had a letter from the hon. Gentleman, on House of Commons notepaper, asking me to use my place in the Ballot to take up the Bill eventually sponsored by the hon. Member for City of Chester. The hon. Gentleman stated in this invitation that the Bill had the support of competent naturalists, which I certainly accept. I replied on 11th November regretting being unable to accede to his request as it was my intention to promote a Bill to ban staghunting and hare coursing, and I added, with tongue in cheek, that I would be grateful for his help.
  Back came the reply, but this time on British Field Sports Society notepaper, and I must quote from it because it is rather apt. He said:
  " Thank you for your letter of 11th November. There is all the difference in the world between the Seals Bill, which has the support of competent naturalists and countrymen, and the Bill which I believe you intend to introduce under your Ballot place."
  The hon. Gentleman voted against the Seals Bill. I assume that he of all hon. Gentlemen regards himself as a competent naturalist and certainly as a countryman.
  But perhaps the most despicable action of all—
  Deputy Speaker. Are we discussing the Hare Coursing Bill or the Seals Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was about to draw attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the Bill before the House.
  Mr. Shaw: The question of cruelty in hare coursing has been adequately dealt with and I am trying to establish the bona fides of those hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill. I feel that the House will be persuaded that, in effect, the opposition to it will be bogus. Perhaps the most despicable action of all was the blackmailing of the R.S.P.C.A., through the threat to challenge its charitable status if it actively supported my Bill. I can only conclude that such people would naturally be found in the

  1555
  vanguard of the movement to preserve the right to indulge in blood sports.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has much business to deal with today and many hon. Members wish to speak. Brief speeches will help the Chair.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: I am certain that all country men will be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for the way he opened the debate from this side of the House and the tone he set and the arguments he developed, which I am confident will be used in many similar discussions of field sports for a great many years to come. I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw) later in my brief speech.
  I want to make three points on behalf of the British Field Sports Society and the National Coursing Club. First, I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State why the Government have departed from their neutral position on this issue. In moving the Second Reading he did not really make his case. If it was so important that the House should have a chance to reach a decision, why was it not done on a Private Member's Bill? Why did no hon. Member who had a place in the Ballot think the Bill worthy of giving it one of the first six places?
  Secondly, why could not the Government wait until the report of the independent inquiry, set up with their full knowledge, under Mr. Owen Stable, has been completed. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will be asked to give evidence. I understand that the field work of the inquiry has only just been concluded and that Mr. Stable has another very important inquiry to complete, which has delayed him in getting on with this one. Thirdly, why, if the Government were going to act, did they not legislate along the line of the Scott Henderson Report, which would be more than acceptable and, indeed, welcome to the National Coursing Club and all other sports?
  As my right hon. Friend said, the Government redeclared their neutrality in 1966. This was confirmed again by the
  1556
  Minister of State, Home Office, in February, 1968. I remember the interview I had with the Minister of State then. It was at the time of the trawler disasters and hon. Members will recall what a great public outcry there was about the safety of our trawlers in the North Sea. As I left the Home Office, the Under-Secretary of State said to me, " You see what I mean? If you have an incident which encourages a subsequent public outcry in any field sport on the scale we are enduring at the moment, I think the Government would have to act." What incident has there been in coursing which makes it necessary for the Government to act? What outcry has there been—and I mean genuine outcry? In fact, there has been no genuine outcry. What the Government and hon. Members have suffered from is an organised campaign which has been mounted against this sport and described by some as sired by bias out of ignorance—a campaign which has avoided setting the facts in their proper perspective, which has made frequent use of the unfamiliarity and ignorance of the general public about this very small sport, and which has cleverly cashed in on our animal-loving, pet-keeping and humane society.
  The Home Office has a long experience in dealing with campaigns. Look how well it stands up to pressures on vivisection and ritual slaughter! Why has it not been able to stand up to this campaign? Hon. Members should appreciate the extent of the distortions to which the campaign has run. Even one respectable newspaper claimed after the Waterloo Cup the other day that hares were torn to pieces. I took the trouble to get the receipt from the poulterer to which the hares were sold afterwards and in fact they were not torn to pieces. This is a familiar pattern of propaganda. Propaganda is poured out ceaselessly on one point. Biased pictures are suddenly produced, sensational articles are published, and in this particular case an even more sensational record, and finally the House is faced with a Private Member's Bill and then a Government Bill.
  Members are being asked to make a judgment on this sport and yet they have consistently refused to go and see for themselves. I think I am right in saying that even the hon. Member for Ilford,

  1557
  South has not been to a coursing meeting. Few, if any, hon. Gentlemen opposite have even bothered to answer the invitation which has been extended to them to attend a National Coursing Club meeting. Only two Members have been since this Bill was announced. Since then —I must be fair—two senior members of the Government have expressed a willingness to attend a coursing meeting, but unfortunately the announcement of this Bill came after the end of the coursing season so it was not possible to provide this facility. The hon. Gentleman will argue that one does not have to see a murder to know that murder is wrong.
  Mr. Sheldon: There were three hon. Members who went to Altcar, and I was one of them.
  Mr. Kimball: I apologise. But three out of 300 Members is all who have bothered to go.
  The hon. Member for Walton and his friends have argued that they do not have to see a murder to know that murder is wrong. This is no argument. We all accept that murder is wrong. But after all, a very respectable body of people and a large number of knowledgeable countrymen who support coursing have an opinion contrary to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have had an inter-Departmental inquiry which, if my reading of the summary is correct, said that coursing did not introduce into the life of a wild animal a cruelty which was not normally there in nature.
  Hon. Members say that their postbag is overwhelmingly against coursing. But who, if they live in the middle of Birmingham has an opportunity to go coursing. to see coursing, or even to understand the countryside? They do not have a chance to live close to nature like people in the countryside. They do not see the carnage on the roads in the early morning. They do not appreciate that nature and the countryside is very cruel and the most any animal can expect, if it is very lucky, is to live long enough to procreate itself.
  In dealing with the second criticism that we have of the Government, why they did not follow the Scott Henderson Report, the right hon. Gentleman the
  1558
  Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) did not actually develop this argument to the full. What Scott Henderson said was that the Home Secretary would set up an advisory committee for each sport and that the rules of each sport should be deposited with that advisory committee.
  I have constantly told successive Home Secretaries that the governing bodies of all sports under the British Field Sports Society are ready and longing to deposit their rules and would welcome Government action along this line, which would be followed by amending the Cruelty to Animals Act so that conduct not according to those rules could be prosecuted. This would deal with the case that the hon. Member for Walton has always quoted, that when he went to a coursing meeting the hares were being slipped at only 30 yards until such time as he arrived. If it was true, he could take action if the Scott Henderson recommendations were followed. I hope that the Under-Secretary will seriously consider taking action along these lines.
  Hon. Gentlemen do not realise how strictly the rules governing any sport are enforced. The sanctions for breaking those rules are enormous. In most sports there are considerable financial sanctions and in coursing, if a person ever has his dog in a course not properly run according to the rules, he would be forbidden to register it in the stud book and he would not be able to sell it or its progeny. The rules of the National Coursing Club are the oldest rules governing any sport in this country. Of course, they are a bit out of date. They were amended in some aspects in the light of Scott Henderson. The rule about " pickers-up " was put in Rule 21. The rules about photography were put in recently and are in line with the rules in the rule book of the National Hunt Committee.
  This rule book does not deal with the problem of the motor car and equally it has to be amended to deal with the campaign of distortions now being carried on against coursing. The rule book has to be amended so that the stewards' report of any meeting will be in such a form that we would be able to prosecute the hon. Member for Walton for the allegations he made at the meeting he attended.

  1559
  My third point has to do with the Stable inquiry. The Under-Secretary mentioned the first three terms of reference. These are to do with conservation and management of the hare, breeding and training of the coursing dogs and the inter-relationship between coursing and greyhound racing. Paragraph (d) is particularly important in view of the arguments advanced from the other side of the House. I understand that the field work has been completed this coursing season. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Walton in his place, because I am confident that he will receive an invitation from the Committee which is hoping to report by the end of the summer. The important thing about the Stable inquiry is that it will build on the work of Scott Henderson which only looked at the Waterloo Cup. How typical is Altcar of coursing? What is the difference between driven in and walked up coursing, whippet coursing, saluki coursing and the coursing of Blue Mountain hares in Scotland with the deerhound? All of this will be covered by the Stable inquiry and was not covered by the original Scott Henderson inquiry. No one can inquire into a country sport today without developing the conservation argument. The point has already been made that the National Coursing Club did not develop this argument 20 years ago. In any review of coursing conservation must come in and we must consider the changes in the countryside, the destruction of habitat and the need for control and management.
  What is clear is that abolitionists would welcome the extermination of the species rather than that it should be conserved through sport. This is the evidence they gave to Scott Henderson. The effect of coursing is to produce fine strong hares and to kill off the weaker animals. It is not recognised as a conservation policy yet by the Coursing Club, but it is precisely what professional conservationalists would like to do in dealing with other species in this country. In coursing areas land management is properly organised to ensure a good supply of hares. It is only in those areas, certainly in the East Midlands, where this is practised, that hares thrive.
  I have tried to show that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading. There is no logical case. Here is an
  1560
  activity which has been going on for centuries and has given endless pleasure to many country folk. Now it is to be made a crime. It is wrong to say that we live in a permissive society. We live in an intolerant society. Intolerance has led to a campaign of misrepresentation which, for misguided political motives, the Government have adopted, thus lowering the standards of a very great Department of State. No attempt has been made in the Bill to follow the recommendations of the committee of inquiry set up in 1951. That such wrong-headed principles can be put into legislation means that all and every country sport is now in danger. The arguments in defence apply to them all. The Bill, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South said, is the thin end of the wedge. We will fight against it to defeat it with all the means in our power.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) spoke of the updating of the rules and, in attempting to show how much more akin to people's thinking the rules are becoming, he instanced one of the latest rules which prohibits photography at meetings. Anyone who knows anything about the way in which the National Coursing Club runs its affairs knows perfectly well that that rule was adopted to conceal the club's activities, and the effect of those activities upon people who have tried to take photographs has been considered in hushing up what has actually gone on to the shame of the club and to those who take part in it.
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned the emotionalism that is inevitably linked with this subject. In that, he is completely right. There cannot fail to be a great deal of emotionalism when we are considering cruelty and pain unmitigated by the work of the National Coursing Club.
  Whereas we in this country were once rightly proud of what we did in preventing cruelty to animals by various acts of legislation, time has not stood still: other countries have been following our example and have rapidly been catching us up. Many countries have legislation controlling cruelty to animals in a manner not appreciably worse than ours and possibly in a few cases more advanced than

  1561
  ours. So our position as the forerunner and advance guard in preserving the dignity of animals, while understanding the limitations, has changed. We need now to consider the next step.
  The legislative story started with the Act of 1822, when the cruel and improper treatment of horses, mares, geldings, mules, asses, cows, heifers, steers, oxen, sheep and cattle was banned. The penalty for contravening the Act was a sum not exceeding £5 nor not less than 10s. That £5 was higher then than the £100 penalty suggested in the Bill.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: A hundred years of Tory inflation!
  Mr. Sheldon: Years of Tory inflation I accept, but no one can say that the penalty is fixed too high.
  The next landmark was the Act of 1911. Clause 1 banned definitively bear-baiting and cock-fighting—
  Mr. James Ramsden: Bear-baiting and cock-fighting were banned in 1845. The Act was consolidated in 1911.
  Mr. Sheldon: Because the position was not clear, the 1911 Act was brought in to clarify it completely, and a very useful Act it was.
  I introduced my Bill in the 1968–69 Session and I received a large number of letters from people in rural areas, towns, universities, workshops, factories, trade union branches, organisations, Women's Institutes—the whole range. I am sure that even hon. Gentlemen who support hare coursing also received similar letters.
  I received a letter from the University of Leicester Conservative Association in full support for the Bill that I was attempting to get through Parliament at that time. We all know that even in the Conservative Party there are large numbers of people throughout the country, perhaps not including many of those who are represented in this House, who would like this Bill to be given a Second Reading.
  I should like to quote from two reports by the R.S.P.C.A. I quote, first, from the report of Inspector No. 88 of a hare course meeting which took place on 29th October, 1968;
  1562
  "… the greyhounds coursing both caught the hare. One dog had hold of one rear leg, the other dog had hold of the front leg. The hare was squealing. Another hare then started running. The dog holding the rear leg released it and started to chase the other hare. The dog holding the front leg also gave chase, still holding the hare. I estimate that the time the hare was held was about 30 to 45 seconds. The hare was finally dropped and it staggered and then ran off over a part of the field that was ploughed. One man who ran after the hare said on his return that the hare had disappeared and he could not find it."
  The second extract is dated 15th October, 1968, and is as follows:
  " During the afternoon session two dogs chased the hare right to where I stood and they grabbed it about 25 yards in front of me. I had a pretty good close-up this time and the hare was in the jaws of two dogs. One had the centre back, the other held to the top of the hind quarters. There was some powerful
  pulling and the hare was squealing. Concern was noticed by me of the men and two or three of them ran hard to the spot. As it was difficult to grab the hare from the dogs, one man quickly put his foot hard down on the hare's head."
  This is what goes on in hare coursing. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will
  recognise this as a fair description of the kind of thing that can take place at these meetings.
  We must also remember the number of people who take part in these events. The one that I visited with my hon. Friends the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) was attended by 20 or 30 people.
  This is typical of a small meeting and is the figure mentioned in the Scott Henderson Report in paragraph 265.
  It is also came to the conclusion that about 50 per cent. of the hares were killed at most of these meetings. This may be a little on the high side, but, clearly, it is a substantial number. It is not a rare occasion that a hare is killed. It is a frequent event. The way in which the killing of hares takes place in such a cruel way is an indictment of the way in which these meetings are controlled and the sport is organised.
  The control of hares is not the reason for coursing. Many unpleasant things occur to animals. Realising the nature of pain that is caused to animals, it must be our task to minimise it. We all know that there is a choice between the rights of animals and the needs of man. Unfortunately, the needs of man must come

  1563
  first. This is based on no particular logic, but only on the expedient consideration that we are meat eaters. But the rights of animals must be considered. We consider that matter in terms of animals as pets, as food for human consumption and in all sort of ways. The needs of man must not obliterate the rights of animals.
  When we consider the needs and convenience of man, I suggest that no one could say that we should put this sport, for want of a better word, in the same category. When we consider hare coursing, we must accept that the only advantage to man is the pleasure that he may get out of it. To say that the needs of the animal are subservient to the pleasure obtained by man is to exaggerate the case.
  We all know the argument which has been advanced from the benches opposite. It is what I call the " thin end of the wedge " argument. A number of hon. Gentleman opposite will vote against the Bill because they believe that it is the first of a number whereby legislation will come before the House to restrict the other blood sports which are a stain on the way in which we conduct our affairs. If that is the sole objection of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I ask them to mitigate it on this score alone.
  Hare coursing cannot be compared with other blood sports. It cannot be compared with foxhunting. Foxes are pests and they have to be kept down. The argument is whether that should be done by shooting, hunting, or trapping, or by other means. Hares are not pests, except in rare cases. Here, we have a situation which is more akin to cock-fighting and bull-baiting than to fox-hunting.
  If hon. Gentlemen opposite were clever and sensible, which they are not, they would forgo this one because it is linked more with those so-called sports which have been banned in the past than any which are to be banned in the future. Hare coursing is utterly indefensible. We are debasing animals, debasing ourselves and inflicting pain on animals solely for our own pleasure. We are not doing it for our need and convenience. Here is an exact parallel with cock-fighting, bull-baiting and bear-baiting. Hare coursing lies very much in the early years of the 19th century as a suitable subject for prohibition rather than in the 20th century, when we might have to deal with other matters in due course.
  1564
  Even given the assumptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, they are wrong to make their stand on this point. They should have let it go and retreated to fight the others.
  We have heard it said from the benches opposite that few hon. Members on this side have seen the coursing of hares. I want to give a brief description of the situation which my hon. Friends and I saw in January or February of 1969 at Altcar. We arrived unannounced and unnoticed. We found ourselves in a field of about 1,000 acres. We tried hard to avoid being conspicuous, and we were wearing clothing similar to that worn by other people present. Between 20 and 30 people were in attendance. I have the card of the course, and it is numbered " 16 ". We arrived two hours after the meeting had begun. This is an indication of the number of spectators present on that occasion. It was a fairly pleasant day, the kind of day on which one would go coursing if so inclined. The weather was good.
  As soon as we arrived we saw a hare being coursed. The hare was caught by both
  dogs, one at the foreleg and one at the back leg, and there was a tug of war. A second course took place, but the hare managed to get away. We were then spotted. It is easy to see why we were spotted, although we did not look so conspicuous. People travel round the country from place to place to attend these courses and they know each other. The assertion that this is a local sport for local landowners, farmers and land workers is nonsense. It is difficult to discover where coursing is being held. The local people do not know, because they are not interested. This is a wealthy man's game. Small numbers attend these courses, with dozens of beaters beating the hares out. I repeat, it is a wealthy man's game.
  An Hon. Member: No.
  Mr. Sheldon: I will read through the list. These are the owners in the United Produce Stakes which took place on Thursday, 9th January, 1969: the Earl of Sefton, Mrs. Bobs Lucas, the Earl of Sefton again, Mr. R. de Larrinaga, Lady Hudson, the Earl of Sefton, Mrs. M. W. Evans, Lord Rank, and so on.
  Mr. Roebuck: The shop stewards!
  Mr. Sheldon: The shop stewards might have been almost as conspicuous as we were.
  Clearly, amongst such company a Member of this side of the House would stand out. We stood out because it is not a local sport. It is a sport indulged in by people who travel round the country and know each other from going around. They use various places because they have hares, and where there are hares they have their courses.
  We saw this taking place. But, as soon as we were spotted, they called the lunch interval. We saw two courses only, and then the lunch interval was called. After lunch the whole thing changed. The rules —I have a copy of the rules—state that the nature of the ground should be such that the length of the slip—that is, the length between the hare in movement and the releasing of the two dogs—should never be less than from three to four score yards, 60 to 80 yards. It is a measure of the approximation of these things that the hare travels at about 30 miles an hour, and it is difficult to measure the distance between the lead given to the hare and the dogs at the beginning of the event.
  When we arrived we estimated that it could be between 40 and 80 yards. However, as soon as the lunch interval was over and they were conducting the event in the knowledge that three Members of Parliament, or three strangers, were present, and they realised the purpose of our visit, the lead increased to over 100 yards on the best estimate that we could make, and the dogs did not have a chance. The hare just ran off into the field and the dogs were almost driven into the ground. Therefore, it is important that visits should be unannounced, because it is extraordinarily difficult to find out what goes on.
  There is a new rule about photography. Is this to improve the game, to improve the sport? No. It is because they know exactly what goes on. They know that. unless by chance one of the dogs gets hold of the neck of the hare and kills it outright, the dogs will catch hold of the part nearest to them, which is usually one of the legs, and from then on the animal is in torment and the sport is there to be enjoyed. I do not say that that is the moment of great triumph for all those
  1566
  watching, but it is an inescapable part of the operation of this sport.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walton said that the rules provided for a certain number of points to be given for the kill and the manner of the kill. When I asked whether this sport could be made less barbarous, I was informed by the National Coursing Club that there could be no change, that dogs could not be muzzled, that courses could not be changed, and that the rules could not be altered, because if they were coursing as it was known would come to an end, and I think that the club is right.
  The thing which is enjoyed either has to be abolished, or it must be allowed to continue. I believe that if we are to take our place again at the forefront of the countries which have made advances in animal welfare, and in the protection of animals, we must end this cruelty.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. James Ramsden: Unlike the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I shall try to be brief, because we began this debate later than we would normally have done, and I know that many hon. Members on both sides wish to speak.
  I shall pursue a little later the point made by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech, about the recent deficienies in legislation in this country on the subject of animals compared with that in other countries, when I hope to make what I trust the House will accept is a constructive suggestion for the future handling of legislation on this subject. To begin with, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall not follow him, but will get back to the merits and consequences of the Bill, which I think have been a little lost sight of in some of the recent speeches to which the House has listened.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to repeat what I said in reply to him when he brought forward his Measure, but I want to repeat, as it is crucial, the first point that I made on that occasion. The Bill will not prevent coursing. It will prevent coursing matches. It will prevent coursing as it is conducted at Altcar. It will prevent coursing as it is conducted under the rules of the National Coursing Club, but it will not prevent people from running

  1567
  dogs after hares. The Minister of State, who has had to go away to get his dinner, was quite specific about this.
  Whereas at present comparatively few people go out casually and run a dog after a hare, if the accepted form of the sport is prohibited it is likely that the irregular and casual form of it will increase very much in popularity, and with it will increase the amount of undesirable practices which the carefully drawn and studied rules of the National Coursing Club are designed to prevent.
  Mr. Heffer: That kind of coursing will be totally illegal when the Bill becomes law. The Bill is drawn in such a way that it will be illegal for people to carry out that kind of coursing. The only thing that will not be illegal is if two people, at a given moment, though not by design, let their dogs go after a hare had appeared. If it is competitive coursing, it will be illegal.
  Mr. Ramsden: I hope that we shall get this clear from the Government. I listened carefully to the Minister, and I thought he was explicit that coursing matches would be banned, but that coursing not under the rules, not in the context of a match, but of letting a dog go after a hare would not be illegal. If that is the case, then that practice will increase.
  Coursing is a very ancient sport. It owes its origins, I suppose, to the days when a man let loose a couple of dogs after a hare to get something for the pot. But it is interesting that, as long ago as 2,000 years, the object of the sport had already changed from the capture of game, the filling of the pot, to interest in and enthusiasm about the performance of the dog. The expression " pot-hunting ", which most of us know in the context of going around trying to pick up prizes, is itself a coursing term. It originated among the coursing fraternity, where it was used as derogatory to those who approached the sport in a spirit of wanting to catch hares, as opposed to taking pleasure in the performance of the long dog.
  I can readily see, as can the House, I think, that for those who go in for this sport—I am not one—there is something compellingly attractive about the dash and the grace and the speed of a couple of greyhounds. We do not need
  1568
  to have passionate views about the cruelty or otherwise of the sport to appreciate this. It is a rather amiable characteristic of the British people that they get very keen about the habits and characteristics of all sorts of animals, from budgerigars to tropical fish, and especially about dogs.
  It is not surprising that the performance of a magnificent animal like the greyhound should capture people's imagination and grip them and that they should come to develop enthusiasm about it. Given that the Bill will continue to permit the legality of people enjoying the performance of a dog after a hare, so long as this is not done in competitive conditions, I am pretty clear that the practice will continue. I think that it is likely to increase.
  A letter recently appeared in The Field,quite unconnected with this present controversy, headed, " Coursing with lurchers "—[An HON. MEMBER: " With what?"] Lurchers. They are not pure greyhounds, but are greyhounds crossed with a dog that can use its powers of scent. They use their noses as well as their eyes in pursuit of their game. This letter reads:
  " I do not know the extent of your past correspondence on lurcher coursing. I and several friends have for the past three winters made headway in joining together for some sport with 'running dogs' as often as time allows. A dozen of us can field two dozen runners. The sole rewards are the sport and good health. Betting and stakes are banned.
  We realise that our sport is not recognised as open coursing, but we do challenge a world record. It is said that the longest course is 4 minutes 10 seconds in the Guinness Book of Records and the Badminton Diary.On Mr. Nicholas Playne's farm at Aunsby, two running dogs covered one and three-quarter miles. That gives a course time of just over 4 minutes 52 seconds."
  That letter was written to illustrate the growth of a new form of coursing. This and kindred practices will grow.
  This means that whereas coursing conducted under the auspices of the National Coursing Club, with the safeguards of the club rules, will be banned, coursing not subject to such safeguards will be able to flourish, and is likely to. The lurchers course the hare to death. They use their noses when the hare runs out of sight, and there is a kill in every case.

  1569
  Coursing that is not done under the rules will be done in conditions which make it unsuitable for the hare to run, when it is too frosty or too muddy. It will be done without the safeguards of people posted to, despatch the hare quickly if it should be clumsily caught by the dogs. There will be cases, which I believe are minimal now, of the kind of thing described by the hon. Member for Walton as a living tug of war.
  I ask the Minister to tell the House quite straight the answer to this question. He said that it was desirable to ban the sport of coursing on grounds of cruelty. What is it that is acceptable in point of cruelty about the kind of coursing I have been talking about, which will continue to be legal, which is not acceptable about the kind of coursing done at the Waterloo Cup under the rules of the National Coursing Club? It is the declared object of the Bill to lessen cruelty. But it simply will not achieve that object—rather the reverse.
  I shall vote against the Bill because I consider it to be a sham. We are not sent here by our constituents to vote for Bills which are a sham, even in the last weeks, or it may be the last days, of a Parliament.
  I wish to end with a suggestion that I hope the House will accept as an attempt to be constructive. We are in a situation which presents genuine difficulties as regards this Bill and others along the same lines which may follow, certainly for Home Office Ministers and probably for hon. Members on both sides. I beg hon. Members not to underestimate these difficulties or the extent to which they may grow. They arise not just in the context of this Bill, but in the context of field sports generally, and I think that they will be with us for some time. They arise because there is a strong, rich and energetic organisation outside the House campaigning against field sports and mobilising public opinion.
  This is big business. Let the House make no mistake about this. It has plenty of money and a large staff, and its coffers are continously replenished. Against that, there is an equally determined organisation, the British Field Sports Society, resisting
  1570
  those efforts. In sum, a great deal of time, money and ink is being spent. We know that Ministers are most unhappy about the Bill and about its consequences, but the fact remains that there has been—
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by " unhappy "?
  Mr. Ramsden: I said that we know Ministers are unhappy about the Bill. I know that because I have talked to hon. and right hon. Members opposite and I know that they are not particularly happy about the situation. There is, none the less—
  Mr. Merlyn Rees Mr. Merlyn Rees rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Ramsden: There has been put upon them what has amounted to irresistible pressure from public opinion and from hon. Members opposite to legislate in this sense. I do not think that this is an easy situation. I think it a good rule in politics, when this kind of situation exists, to consider ways and means of taking the steam out of it for the future.
  I do not believe that this Bill will take the steam out of it, because, if it goes through, the next objective of the campaign will be a similar or parallel Bill and public opinion will be mobilised once again. Here I disagree with the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, because I do not believe that the distinction between this Bill and others based on degrees of cruelty is supportable. I do not think that distinction can be made.
  We shall have a situation which will be embarrassing for hon. Members, and for Home Office Ministers in particular, in which we are likely to get continuous pressure and a head of steam which the passage of this Bill will do nothing to relieve. One of the basic reasons for this situation, as the Scott Henderson Committee recognised, is that those who object to field sports at present have no remedy at law. They have no remedy at law to register such protests as they may genuinely feel they should make. We have legislation dealing with the question of protection of domestic and captive animals from cruelty. There is

  1571
  no legislation dealing with the position of wild animals or providing protection for them from what may be considered excessive cruelty. It follows that those who allege such instances or feel indignation that they may exist have no redress.
  I think the Scott Henderson Committee was absolutely right in recommending that this situation should be coped with. The Government should consider extending the protection of the 1911 Act dealing with wild animals with the provisos mentioned by the committee. I would take the matter out of politics and put it in the courts. Instead of having this continuous pressure on hon. Members, and from them on Ministers, instead of having the continual difficulty of trying to frame sensible laws in conditions in which I believe it is not possible to frame them, these matters should be brought before the courts and the courts should decide on particular instances according to the evidence.
  I seriously believe that the Government should consider doing this. There will be difficulties, but I do not think that they will weigh much against the kind of difficulties which will arise from this Bill and which, I am sure, will crop up in future as a result of pressure for similar Bills. The Government should consider legislation on the Scott Henderson lines, or at least consider setting up another Committee to investigate the matter.
  To me, this is a matter of the liberty of the individual. A few of my constituents—not very many admittedly, certainly not very rich and not very influential but none the less an articulate few—enjoy going coursing. They are thoroughly decent, law-abiding Yorkshire people, the last sort of people I should have thought the Home Office would wish to fall foul of or go out of its way to upset. They cannot understand what they take to be the values of this present Parliament, which seems to them to have promoted and condoned conduct and manners which they deeply deplore in other spheres and to be picking on them simply because there are fewer of them. I think that they are right. I shall vote against the Bill.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak. I
  1572
  have appealed, so far without conspicuous success, for brief speeches.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the very wise speech just delivered by the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). The right hon. Gentleman is of the countryside; he knows it; he has lived with animals all his life and has learned to love them, as in a measure so have I.
  It has been said that this is a nation of animal lovers. It is true that within this nation as rarely elsewhere there are people who are prepared to devote their lives to the services of animals—their dumb friends, whatever one likes to call them. They staff animal health dispensaries. They staff pony clubs, where so much has been done to get decent treatment for the ponies. They police the rules against export for slaughter. They campaign on the question of poisoning in the countryside.
  Among animal lovers in this sense the promoters of the Bill are not to be numbered. Nor have they been active in outlawing the really great cruelties which still occur. The use of explosive harpoons in hunting the whale is bringing about the extermination of this great and highly intelligent mammal.
  Then there is rat and mole poisoning. I remember the agitation there was against the poison given to the rat so that he should not die in his hole where he would stink; so he was given phosphorus which caused in him such thirst that he then went and drank and destroyed himself by the medieval water torture, because he got water in until he burst. We have succeeded in getting phosphorus and red squill poisoning banned, but still not enough, and nothing like enough, has been done to deal with the poisoning of the rat which is a far more intelligent animal than the hare, although perhaps not as emotionally attractive. Strychnine is still legally used against the mole—by God, that is cruelty.
  Then there are the recommendations of the Brambell Committee on factory farming.
  None of those matters is touched, because it would mean hitting strong interests. Coursing is being hit, not

  1573
  because it is cruel, but because it is weak. Even within field sports it is not selected for humane reasons. Take fishing, there is the putting of the barb into the mouth; the pleasure is the struggle against that torture, the more attractive the longer it lasts. In the case of coarse fishing, the fish is pulled out and the barb removed; then the fish is thrown back because it is not wanted, except to be tortured again. Nobody touches that. The interests are too strong.
  Then there is shooting. Shooting does not kill instantly in anything like the majority of cases. There are wounded that get away, particularly in a hare shoot. I thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Father of the House —the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)—that a hare shoot is a horrible thing.
  I once saw 600 hares shot at a single shoot, but I do not think that one-third of them were killed instantly. They were brought in by dogs, not dogs which strike like a greyhound and generally kill instantly but dogs trained to use a soft mouth for carrying birds. Mostly they brought the hares back alive, and often the hares broke away from the dogs and had to be retrieved several times before being brought to hand. I am not talking about what happens to a few hares at a coursing meeting but to what can happen to literally hundreds of hares in a day at a shoot.
  I am told by some hon. Members that hare coursing is not an alternative to this sort of hare shooting. In a sense, when we are talking about control we are really talking about what level of population will be tolerated by those who produce the food which hares eat. If there is coursing because it is a sport, the farmer will tolerate a far higher level of hares than he would otherwise allow.
  In any event even within hare hunting it is not the inhumane but the humane that would be banned by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has obviously not read the Measure thoroughly.
  Mr. Heffer: I certainly have.
  Mr. Paget: Then he has not understood it, because the Bill provides that one can course as much as one likes as
  1574
  long as one courses to kill the hare. One can not course to test a greyhound, without wishing to kill the hare. This means that the precautions which the
  National Coursing Club's rules are designed to have to protect the hare are being removed by the Bill. That is all the Bill does.
  This is not a Bill which the hare would vote for if he were here. Frankly, those who are producing the Bill do not care a damn about the hare. [Interruption.] This must be said and I am saying it. There are other reasons for this Measure, one of them being back bench frustration.
  Mr. Heffer: My hon. and learned Friend is an expert at that.
  Mr. Paget: When one is successful in the Ballot one is often in difficulty to think of something to do with one's luck.
  Mr. Heffer: This really is not good enough.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was heard. He must hear things that he might not like.
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of Order—
  Sir Robert Grant-Ferris: Take it like a man.
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. I am not objecting in any way to the statements being made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I only wish to make it clear that while many hon. Members on the back benches may be frustrated, my hon. and learned Friend is about the most frustrated of all.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Be that as it may, the hon. Member must listen to things that he might not want to hear. He himself was heard.
  Mr. Paget: I was speaking of back bench frustration. Having been successful in the Ballot—
  Mr. Heffer: The Ballot has nothing to do with this.
  Mr. Paget: —a back bencher is often at a loss to decide what to do with his luck; that is, except in this sphere of

  1575
  animals, which traditionally has been dealt with by back bench Bills.
  Mr. Sheldon: Nonsense.
  Mr. Paget: Most Measures of this kind have resulted from back benchers being lucky in the draw.
  Mr. Sheldon: My hon. and learned Friend must be aware of the many other contributions on numerous subjects which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I have made in the House.
  Mr. Paget: That is entirely true, and I am often deeply interested in their efforts. I am only saying that this interest in our dumb friends arose from back bench luck in the Ballot.
  Mr. Heffer: That is not true.
  Mr. Paget: I have been talking about back bench frustration.
  Mr. Heffer: My hon. and learned Friend would not, I am sure, wish to make statements which are totally untrue. I first introduced a Measure of this kind under the Ten Minute Rule. It had nothing whatever to do with the Ballot.
  Mr. Paget: Splendid. This is it—finding legislation a back bencher can deal with. But no dumb friends nor the League Against Cruel Sports or anyone else about animals came to my hon. Friend's interest until these private legislation opportunities arose.
  The second factor here is the puritan joy of rebuking sin as long as it is somebody else's. In a permissive society the opportunities for this are limited, but the appetite remains. Here is a great opportunity for the townsman to rebuke the countryman and say what a primitive and savage brute he is.
  Even more, on a class basis we are told that it is lords and other such formidable people who go into this sport. But we do not rebuke fishermen because there are too many of them. We do not rebuke shooting because too many people shoot. But here, in hare coursing, is a weak minority. They are attacked not because they are cruel but because they are weak, and it is nice to find some sort of whipping boy on whom one can impose one's frustrations.
  I would like to examine this matter of what cruelty is in these terms, and
  1576
  from the point of view of the victim I would ask: does it increase the total of suffering? Let us remember that nature provides no beds for its denizens to die in. Death in nature is brutal and cruel. Again, one may ask whether this sport cuts into the balance of nature because it has gone on for a long time and whether the upsetting of that balance would be cruel. What about the preservation aspect? It seems to be a paradox that much is preserved which would die otherwise simply because of sport.
  The red deer is an example. He would certainly be exterminated if he were not hunted. One could not legislate to make a farmer submit to his crops being destroyed. He would blaze away at the deer, generally using bird shot, with the wretched animal dying of gangrene. This is what happens everywhere there is not a hunt to preserve the animal.
  But the abolitionists would be happy to exterminate a species so long as they could deny the huntsman his quarry. I am not saying that the hare would be exterminated if it were not for coursing, but, certainly, a lower level of hare population would be tolerated if it were not for coursing and the sport which is provided.
  Occasionally, I sleep out because I am interested in natural pursuits. I remember hearing in the night a hare being killed by a weasel. It was crying for nearly 45 minutes and when the light enabled me to trace it I tracked it for three quarters of a mile over which the death agony of that fight had gone on. Nature's death for the hare is not pleasant. I venture to say that of all the deaths available to the hare probably the quick death from the greyhound is the best.
  Having said this, one asks, from the point of view of the sportsman, whether he should be stopped. We have been told that we do not have to see murder to know that it is wrong. Murder has been recognised as wrong by all societies since man has been organised in society and equally, throughout that period, the hunting of hares with dogs has been a pursuit of mankind, recognised, accepted and encouraged by all humane societies of which we have any record. It is rather a different position from that of murder because, curiously enough, it has been supported and encouraged by all peaceful Governments. The Governments who

  1577
  have denounced the chase have been the Governments who have said, " This distracts our citizens from their proper warlike occupations ". But peaceful Governments have realised that there is an aggression in man's nature and that it is most harmlessly expressed in sports which man has pursued right through history. This particular nut has not been selected for cracking because particular cruelty is involved, nor because the occupation itself is anti-social, but simply because it is thought that this is a small, weak interest by which we can appease a clamour without annoying somebody very much. This is the very negation of democracy. Democracy is not merely the rule by a majority, it is the rule by a majority which recognises the rights of minorities and which recognises the duty to protect minorities, and not merely to sacrifice minorities for its convenience.
  The Bill will not become law because it will be dropped as we get to the election. I hope we see no more of it and that we have a proper inquiry to produce proper, sensible, thought out legislation to deal with the whole question of wild life.
  9.47 p.m.
  Lieut-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: When the Under-Secretary opened the debate he emphasised several times that it was competitive coursing that we are dealing with, and said that it involved a degree of cruelty—I hope I have his words correctly—which cannot be tolerated at the present time.
  What, then, is the purpose of the Bill? Is it to deter humans from some of their baser instincts, alleged sadism and gambling, or is it to prevent suffering by hares? Because if the Bill still permits the coursing of hares, provided that coursing is not competitive between two or more dogs, then that coursing can continue. If we believe all that we have been told about the cruelty involved, obviously if that is true the cruelty applies equally to competitive or non-competitive coursing
  The Bill goes far belond that. If the advocates of the Bill were sincere, they would be consistent. There would be no shooting, no fishing, no killing of mice or rats—not just by strychnine, but by any method. The use of insecticides in the household or the garden would be
  1578
  forbidden. We would not even be allowed to be vegetarians. It would be a sin to go into the garden and cut a cabbage—the poor thing, so green and lovely; and think of the deprived cabbage white caterpillars.
  In the words of a popular song of the 1920s:
  " Never swat a fly, he may love another fly, He may sit all day and sigh, the way I do with you.
  Never kill a moth when he is flying through the air "—
  Mr. Roebuck: Sing it.
  Lieut-Commander Maydon:
  " He may love another moth in somebody's underwear."
  I regret that I do not quite remember the end of this romantic ditty. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] At any rate:
  " Never kill a moth when he is flying through the air,
  He may love another moth in somebody's underwear."
  If the promoters of the Bill really were consistent and true to their theme our diet would contain no meat, no vegetables, eggs and milk would be taboo. Beer would be beyond the pale, so cruel to hops and barley would its making be. Wine would be banned, not on grounds of total abstinence but because its making involved depriving the vine of its offspring. We would all have to live on beastly little pills cooked up from synthetic substances in a horrible laboratory.
  That may all be very fine for a kill-joy Socialist society in a kill-joy Socialist world, but the world is not all Socialist.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be out of Order if he comes to the Bill.
  Lieut-Commander Maydon: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps my enthusiasm was running away with me.
  If I passionately believed, as some obviously do, that hare coursing was wrong I would still believe sufficiently in the rights of individuals to follow pursuits of their own choice which do not harm the community or their neighbours. That would be my overriding consideration.
  What is more, the result of the Bill will do harm to the community. If

  1579
  enacted, it would be defied in many remote quarters of the countryside, possibly in some not so remote. Defiance will bring the law in general into further disrepute and, goodness knows, there is enough contempt for the law already. That will be harmful to the whole community.
  The Bill will also be harmful to individuals. Secret coursing contests will still take place on land without the consent of the owners, whether they are individual persons or public bodies like the National Trust. These owners may be constrained to police their land to prevent the law being flouted otherwise they may, in the words of the Bill,
  "… knowingly permits or suffers any place to be used for, the coursing of a hare…"
  Another result would be the clandestine coursing of hares by individual groups no longer controlled by the rules of the various societies which organise and support proper hare coursing. These rules prohibit cruel or unfair practices and the societies have had a marked influence upon the conduct of coursing. The consequence will be much more real cruelty instead of imagined cruelty of which so much is made in this misguided cause.
  What of the dogs who enjoy this sport, the greyhounds and salukis, whippets and others? Are they not worthy of consideration? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may think that this is funny, but this is a serious aspect of the Bill. Not all these dogs are suitable to be trained in the pursuit of electric hares. Incidentally, the Bill seems to include electric hares. It does not specify live hares. That may be a Committee point, but it is one which the promoters should take seriously.
  Are these dogs to be deprived of the fulfilment of their natural instincts? One sad feature of the present day is the way in which the true nature of many breeds of sporting dogs has been distorted and subjugated to the whims and demands of the show ring and the vagaries of fashion and fancy. " Keeping up with the Joneses " is very much a cult in the dog-owning world.
  In many cases instinctive intelligence, stamina, strength and even the health of a breed has been surrendered to foible. Far too close inter-breeding of strains to produce changes in size, appearance and
  1580
  bone structure have resulted in highly-strung animals often subject to canine hysteria and a prey to many diseases to which natural resistance has been bred out. At best, this results in soppy, sentimental pets of low intelligence, but a shadow of their once famous forebears. This is a cruel fate which the promoters will inevitably impose upon the breeds at present engaged in coursing.
  The promoters of the Bill intend to deprive a dog of his natural function and the fulfilment of his instincts and to forbid him resort to his natural environment. Is not this more cruel to a highly intelligent animal than a swift death to a running hare?
  9.56 p.m.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: As another frustrated backbencher, I will not attempt to follow either of the last two speakers. I do not know whether either of them intended their speeches to be taken seriously. The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) was worried about dogs, but if the dogs are taken away I shall be worried about the trees. —[Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we might get back again to the serious debate.
  Mr. Mitchell: Two arguments have run through the debate. The first concerns whether or not hare coursing is cruel and should be banned. The second argument is concerned with whether the Government should have introduced the Bill. I detected in the speech of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) an argument that we were wasting our time this evening in discussing a Bill on hare coursing. He advanced the familiar argument that the R.S.P.C.A. always do better than the N.S.P.C.C. and he said that we talked more about animals than children. As one who has spent 12 years on a children's committee and many years as a teacher, I have a great interest in children and have taken part in debates on children. If as is possible, in the next few weeks I make speeches in the country I doubt whether I shall mention hare coursing and I do not think I shall get any questions on hare coursing. One of the great things about British democracy is that at a time like this when we are all thinking about other things the House

  1581
  of Commons can spend a few hours talking about hare coursing.
  I was proud to be a sponsor of the Private Member's Bill introduced earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw). He has told the House of the methods employed by a small minority of Members opposite to block his Bill by talking on the Bill which was taken previously. On two previous occasions Private Members' Bills on hare coursing have been introduced. The Government are absolutely right to say that the House should make its judgment on the matter.
  The second question is whether hare coursing should be abolished. I do not think that there is any doubt about this. I regard it not as a sport but as a vile and cruel activity.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Hare Coursing Bill, on the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords] and on the Tonga Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Dobson.]
  Question again proposed,That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Mitchell: I have been to hare coursing meetings. I congratulate the People,the B.B.C., I.T.V. and other media on bringing what happens to the attention of people all over the country.
  I have no doubt that we should support the Bill, I only regret that it does not go further. I would have liked certain other things to be included, like deer hunting and so on, which were in my hon. Friend's original Bill. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult for the hon. Gentleman to address the House against a background of conversation from his hon. Friends.
  Mr. Mitchell: I hope that the next Labour Government will not only reintroduce the Bill if we lose it through a General Election but will also introduce other Government Bills to abolish blood sports.
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud): I am one of the vast majority of Members who
  1582
  have never been coursing. I do not suppose that I ever will, but I have tried to inform myself by literature and conversation about what goes on at a coursing meeting, unlike some of those who are so hotly opposed to coursing, judging by what they say, and unlike in particular the League Against Cruel Soprts, whose propaganda is so often unfair and untrue.
  I admit that it is absolutely unnecessary to control the number of hares by coursing. I admit also that some cruelty is involved, although I believe it to be much less than is involved in shooting hares, and probably less than there is in nature uncontrolled by man. There is cruelty in many other activities that we condone in ourselves for economic or other reasons, such as the cruelty in abattiors, the degree of cruelty in factory farming, and destroying vermin that we think to be harmful to our economy.
  I do not believe that the cruelty in coursing is so great as to entitle it to be singled out as a special form or degree of cruelty. In that I rely on the Scott Henderson inquiry of 1951, which came to that conclusion. I also wholly agree with the conclusion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), who said that it was idle to seek to discriminate between cruelties and impossible to do so; we could come to no good conclusion if we tried. But whether or not coursing is cruel, it is absolutely certain that the Bill does not deal with it. It would abolish coursing under the rules which have governed it, but would not abolish running hares with dogs in any other way. Those who have indulged in these things tell me that it is far more likely, with less powerful dogs and dogs less expert than the trained greyhounds employed in coursing, that the runs may be much longer and may far more often result in the death of a hare or its exhaustion, and even in some cases the exhaustion of the dogs, which are sometimes not so large as to be able to sustain the run. So the Bill does nothing towards the banning of any kind of cruelty.
  One may ask why it has been introduced. I hope that I will not be thought to be politically prejudiced when I say that it is clear to me that it has been introduced to gratify the opinions of a large number of people who live in towns and who are not familiar with country

  1583
  pursuits. It has therefore been introduced as a political ploy.
  I believe that we should be against the Bill on other grounds. It is obviously the thin end of the wedge. This has been said over and over again, and it has the endorsement of two hon. Gentlemen opposite who have said that they very much hope that this is the first of a series of Bills which will end all forms of field sports before very long. That is a matter of opinion, but, if we take that view, we are up against a fundamental argument which is the only really powerful one in the debate. It is undemocratic if a majority seeks to impose its will upon a minority, especially a minority which is chosen because it is weak and not very effective politically.
  The State should not intervene except in cases where its safety or welfare is involved. Where the State is not in winger and where it is in no way harmed by the activities of a minority, it is immoral, undemocratic and even dangerous for the Government to intervene.
  The puritanical attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should be regarded with the greatest fear for the future to our demcoracy. I shall vote against the Bill on that main ground.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have a curious idea about democracy. We have heard that there is widespread support throughout the nation for the banning of hare coursing. Because of that support, they declare that it is undemocratic for Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill to meet that demand. That is a curious notion of democracy. If one went back as far as the Greek city State, one would have great difficulty in persuading its citizens that the views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite bear any resemblance to what is meant by democracy.
  There is a further aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind. Over the past year or so, a number of my hon. Friends have informed their electors that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have, Friday after Friday, sought to block a similar Measure to this one by using what can only be termed rather unsporting methods. In attempting to deny that, many right hon. and hon.
  1584
  Gentlemen opposite have flung up their hands in horror, saying that they had no intention of blocking the Bill and that their tactics were part of the normal procedure of Parliament since there was not enough time to debate the Measure. That humbug has been unmasked tonight. From the benches opposite, hon. Member after hon. Member has risen to oppose the Bill.
  It is particularly instructive that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) is one of the Parliamentary Private Secretaries of the Leader of the Opposition—
  Mr. Kershaw: Would the hon. Gentleman care to expand his remarks about parliamentary opposition and refer to the six occasions in this Parliament on which the party opposite has blocked the Bill which seeks to give pensions to the over-80s?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) does, he will be widening the debate too far.
  Mr. Roebuck: I would not dream of infringing the rules of order by following the hon. Gentleman. But if he will invite me to his constituency, I am prepared to debate the issue with him there. That would have the fortunate effect of our not seeing him here after the next General Election.
  The point should be driven home that, almost to a man, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite oppose this Measure to reduce the amount of cruelty in the country. I listened carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said in his interesting and erudite speech. I agreed with what he said about rats, moles, and animals of that nature. Where I differ from my hon. and learned Friend, who does not deny that there is a considerable element of cruelty practised in this so-called sport, is when he appears not to want to abolish it until we have done many other things. I find that a strange doctrine indeed.
  Several hon. Gentlemen opposite have pointed out that nature is very cruel—that the method by which some animals dispose of others is very cruel—and have offered that as a defence for hare coursing. I find that, also, a very strange

  1585
  doctrine. Are not human beings supposed to be at the apex of the animal kingdom and to have sensibilities which would lead them to want to pursue rather more civilised practices?
  The only other point I wish to mention, because I am sure that hon. Members on this side wish to come to a determination on this matter, concerns individual freedom. Again, we had a strange doctrine enunciated from the benches opposite: that people ought to be allowed to pursue these curious practices because it was a question of individual liberty. I suppose that precisely the same argument was offered when hon. Members wanted to abolish bear baiting, cock fighting, and a large number of other cruelties. Of course, that interfered with some form of liberty, but this is democracy. If the nation as a whole feels that these practices are repugnant, that they degrade our society, then it is obviously legitimate for the House to legislate for such matters to be outlawed.
  In view of the widespread support throughout the country for previous Measures which my hon. Friends have tried to introduce, I believe that the Government are absolutely right to bring forward the Bill tonight so that the House can come to a proper determination on the issue. I hope that it will soon go to the vote and that we shall outlaw this squalid form of cruelty which has such attraction for so many hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. David Gibson-Watt: After that rather unpleasant speech by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), which marred an otherwise excellent debate, with arguments put forward with great sincerity on both sides, I should like to put two points to the Government.
  I thought that the Under-Secretary introduced the Bill with no great relish. It is my opinion and knowledge, too, that the Bill was not really accepted by the Home Department but by the Prime Minister, because, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, the dogs have to be given bones sometimes. That is what has really happened, and it is a bad political, party performance.
  Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer I am a Heffer not a dog.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: With respect, I was not insulting the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). He has pursued the Bill with the greatest sincerity, according to his lights. We do riot happen to agree.
  Mr. Roebuck: Do not be impertinent.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am not being impertinent. I am saying that, according to his lights, the hon. Member for Walton is perfectly sincere and that, according to mine, I am also trying to be sincere.
  I believe that the Government are starting on a somewhat slippery slope. As many hon. Members have said, it is difficult to compare the amount of cruelty in various field sports. Equally, the Government have found it extremely difficult to compare the amount of cruelty in the different forms of factory farming which were reported upon by the Brambell Committee and referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). It is not to their credit, as he said, that they have failed to legislate on factory farming, which is well known to be considered by a vast number of people to be cruel.
  It is not to their credit that they have failed to legislate following the Report of the Brambell Committee, and yet they are not prepared to come forward and set up a further commission to report on coursing to follow the Scott Henderson Committee which is now nearly 20 years old. I believe that if the Government were to do this, if they were to accept the suggestion that a commission should follow the Stable Committee which has just reported, we should then be in a much better position to decide about the future of coursing.
  It is fair to say—and it has been said by others—that this is a small sport. It is therefore vulnerable, and so the Government have not hesitated to attack it. May I ask the Minister a question which I asked his hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw)? I ask this question as the Chairman of the British Field Sports Fisheries Committee. Would the Government have taken the same steps against fishing as they have taken against hare coursing?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I should prefer to answer that in my own time when I reply to the debate in a few moments.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do so. Nobody would say that any of the various sports is perfect. I agree with what has been said, that a hare shoot is 100 per cent. more cruel than hare coursing, although I do not happen to have seen hare coursing under national rules. I say to the party opposite, and to the Government in particular, that they should consider in their heart whether they would have attacked the fishing industry, with all the votes that it commands, in the way that they have attacked hare coursing tonight.
  If the Government were prepared to say tonight that they will carry out a further inquiry into coursing by a commission. they would have the whole House behind them.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Ratton Pounder: Just as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was the only person on the benches opposite to speak against the Bill, so I am the only person on these benches thus far to speak for it. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not here, because he said that those who supported the Bill " do not give a damn about the hare ". I regard that as thoroughly offensive and inaccurate.
  I have been bombarded by constituents and various animal welfare and other organisations with literature over recent months and years. The one thing to which perhaps insufficient attention is paid is that those who support hare coursing have also engaged in their own degree of emotionalism. It has not been one-sided. I should like to quote two short sentences from a document called, " Documentary on Field Sports with special reference to Coursing ".
  It says that the
  " relationship between hare and hound was as indelible as that between man and woman …".
  It goes on to say:
  " Anyone who has ever been to a coursing meeting and heard the spontaneous cheer of joy and admiration for a clever hare when she tricks and leaves her pursuers bewildered, will testify that there is nothing bloodthirsty about coursing folk."
  The hare, no doubt, waits for the encore. It is no use one side attacking emotionalism by the other side when it is itself engaged in the same practice.
  1588
  Likewise, I object strongly to the argument that this is a contest between town and country. That is unfair. If I may strike one note of disagreement with what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, with whom no doubt I shall be voting later, it is that I regret that they have sought to inject into the debate the wider issue of bloodsports as a whole. This, surely, is an issue which we must try to take on its own merits and stop chasing bogeys on the one side and on the other trying to imply that those who support the Bill are really after something much broader. This is a very unfair and does no service to the cause of the Bill.
  Likewise, mention has been made of the fact that life in the wild for the hare is cruel. Of course it is. Life on the roads for the hare can be cruel also. But there is a world of difference between life in the raw and organising that wild life for sporting occasions. I realise that the National Coursing Club rules are strict and that those who break them are severely dealt with, but not all courses are held under such strict supervision.
  There are certain differences between the National Coursing Club rules, which have been mentioned several times tonight, and those of the Irish Coursing Club. In England there is an 80-yard start for the hare; in Ireland it is 200 yards. Why can there not be some synchronising of the rules? A start of 200 yards seems much fairer.
  We have heard a great deal about cruelty, injury and death to the hare, but there is also, occasionally severe injury to the greyhounds involved. It is not good enough always to plead the case of the hare alone. There is the issue of the chaser as well as of the chased.
  One thing is not clear to me from the Bill. In the training of greyhounds for coursing there are trials and various tests of stamina involving the use of hares. This has nothing to do with the set piece at Altar or anywhere else: it deals with the training of hares before they start coursing. This involves the blooding of hares. Is this covered by the Bill? I hope that it is, because one has no idea of how many hares are slaughtered in this way.

  1589
  No one who has advocated hare coursing tonight has spoken about the condition and value of the greyhound industry. But where I come from that is an argument which has been used against the abolition of hare coursing—that it is a big and important industry. But that is not a valid argument, because the greyhound which is bred for coursing is rather like a steeplechaser, whereas the greyhound which races around the track after the electric hare is more like the flat racing horse. So it is wholly nonsensical to say that, if coursing is banned, the greyhound industry will be damaged. We are talking about two completely different types of greyhound. Therefore, it would be very unfortunate—
  Mr. John Wells: I have owned a racing greyhound in training and it is a normal part of training to allow it to have the occasional course.
  Mr. Pounder: I accept that. My hon. Friend has misunderstood me slightly. I was thinking in terms of those which are specially bred for one function or the other. This does happen, certainly in Northern Ireland, where, I am glad to say, the Stormont Parliament is currently in the process of abolishing hare coursing.
  It is also argued that the way to weed out the weaker stock is by such a practice as coursing. This is utterly crazy. The weaker stock will be weeded out anyway by their natural predators, so it is a slightly bogus argument to say that coursing helps to produce good quality hares.
  In the final analysis, what we are concerned with is the fact that coursing is a sport.
  Sport, by its very nature, implies a contest between equals. That does not apply in hare coursing. It is argued that sport should be physically exhilarating—but in this case for whom? There can be few sports in which one of the participants stands almost an even chance of being killed. Sport implies that both sides are participating voluntarily. Again, hare coursing fails to meet this qualification of being a sport. I hope, therefore,
  1590
  that the Bill will shortly be on its way the Statute Book.
  10.26 p.m.
  Sydney Bidwell (Southall): Having heard most of the speeches in the debate, I intend to be short and to concentrate on the money aspect of this so-called sport, to which not sufficient attention has been paid.
  I wish, first, to draw attention to the fact that the Bill refers to
  " the coursing of a hare by two or more dogs in a competition as to their ability to course hares ".
  Apparently, there is no objection to one dog chasing one hare, although I suppose that that is designed to take the sporting aspect, not to mention the gambling aspect, out of it.
  This brings me to the subject of the monetary side of hare coursing. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made a magnificant speech, he might have concentrated more on the money aspect of something that calls itself a sport.
  My hon. Friend referred to a hare coursing meeting which he attended in January, 1969. The programme for that meeting cost 10s. and, though a small meeting, the prize money was £95 for the winner, £45 for the owner of the second dog and £20 for the third. Although I cannot confirm this, I imagine that the stakes were considerably higher and that they become higher as time goes by.
  This, together with the other obnoxious aspects of hare coursing, make this so-called sport repulsive. Many of the contributions which hon. Members have made in an effort to justify it as a sport I have found equally repulsive when I think of hares being torn to bits. Reference has been made to hares being taken to local poulterers who have not found evidence of the hares being pulled to pieces. That is easy to explain. Obviously, only the least mutilated hares were supplied.
  The Government are right to make a start on what I hope will be a wholesale attack on blood sports in this country, sports which are an anachronism and a hangover from feudal days.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow): The Minister gave as a principal ground for the Bill the fact that it was demanded by public opinion and that the Government were now convinced that this was a repugnant sport.
  Had the Minister looked over his shoulder he would have seen only 11 supporters
  behind him and that he was accompanied on the Front Bench by one other Minister. That is a measure of the overwhelming public opinion that has called for the implementation of this Measure.
  In so far as it exists at all, public opinion arises from two factors. The first is a recording of a hare screaming, which is used in certain circumstances which I shall describe later. The second is the fact that certain organisations have persuaded people in particular localities to write to their Members of Parliament. This is proved by the fact that some hon. Members have received an enormous number of letters while others have received hardly any. In other words, public opinion on this matter has been deliberately organised.
  Various organs of publicity, particularly the Press and the B.B.C., have been praised for the publicity that has been given to this subject. The House might be interested to hear a personal experience regarding the B.B.C. The Bill had its First Reading last Wednesday, on which day a telephone message came to me asking if I, as Vice-Chairman of the British Field Sports Society, would agree to be interviewed by the B.B.C. I agreed and went there. It was an interview where one does not see the interviewer, conducted through a mouthpiece and earphones. We practised one or two questions and then had five minutes with the interviewer cracking at me and I cracking back.
  Then I went to listen to the recording. What I heard was not the beginning of the interview, but
  "This afternoon Mr. James Callaghan is to introduce a Bill to outlaw hare coursing. If it passes through Parliament an end will be put to this sort of thing.…"
  There then followed by sound sequence the screaming of a hare for several seconds and the recording went on:
  " I find it difficult to discover any feeling of justification for such a sport. But Mr.
  1592
  Jasper More, Conservative Member for Ludlow, is also a Vice-Chairman of the British Field Sports Society and I asked him what his attitude was going to be towards the anti-hare coursing Bill."
  After that introduction, the interview followed. It is hardly necessary to say that the second sentence of that introduction,
  " If it passes through Parliament an end will be put to this sort of thing,"
  and then hearing the screaming hare, is obviously untrue. Hares screaming, unfortunately, will continue in horrible circumstances. The Bill will not prevent the wounding of hares in large numbers by shooting, nor, worse still, the appalling number of accidents involving hares which take place on the roads.
  I went immediately to see the B.B.C. to tackle the corporation about this. I am glad to say that the B.B.C. has behaved very handsomely about it and I now have a letter from the corporation in the following terms:
  " Let me say at once that I agree that you should have been told how it was intended to preface the interview and that, anyway, the second sentence was clearly inaccurate and misleading. I am sorry if this caused you any personal or political embarrassment."
  We are glad to see the Leader of the House present. His name is on the back of the Bill. [Interruption.] I should be glad if he would pay attention. The letter continues with an undertaking which I was glad to get from the B.B.C. that its attitude on this matter will be to present it impartially from now on. It ends rather mysteriously:
  "if you want a head on your charger let it be mine—you will find willing hands to help you raise it, not least on the Government Front Bench! "
  I mention that as an example of the type of publicity which perhaps innocently, but I am afraid not always innocently, has been invoked to provoke the public opinion which the Minister claims has compelled the Government to bring in this Bill. I ask the House, when judging on that, to consider how worthless this publicity has been.
  10.34 p.m.
  Sir David Renton: In this debate sincere views have been expressed very fully on both sides of this argument. I know that a number of my hon. Friends would still like to

  1593
  address the House, but I think that it might be the wish of the House to reach a conclusion upon this matter at some time within the next half hour or so, though we regret the truncating of the debate through the unusual circumstances of today's business.
  I make clear that I shall be expressing my own views in the few remarks I make. I am not a member of the British Field Sports Society or of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, greatly though I admire much of the work done by those bodies. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I felt really sorry for the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department this afternoon. I have never known a Minister, especially a Home Office Minister, who sat down so thankfully after rushing through his Second Reading speech introducing a Bill so rapidly. The Home Secretary has displayed his interest in the debate by his total absence from it. Although coursing is carried on in my constituency—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Back to the Hare Coursing Bill.
  Sir D. Renton: There is a very great distinction between the attitude of the two Front Benches towards the Bill. The Government, for utterly misguided reasons, have made it into a Government Bill. My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have decided that this is not a proper matter for the assertion of a Front Bench view, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made it abundantly clear that he was speaking for himself.
  Although coursing is carried on in my constituency, I am not a coursing man, but I have been to two hare coursing meetings—one for greyhounds and one for Salukis—and I did not see anything on either occasion which could be called barbarous. Very few hares were killed. Those that were killed were killed instantaneously.
  Hares are very numerous in my constituency, especially in the village where I live. Several years ago my neighbour, who owns and farms a lot of land there, decided that the hares were too numerous
  1594
  and he had to organise a hare shoot. In two days 1,500 hares were killed on that one farming estate, three or four times the number killed in the whole of England and Wales by hare coursing in a season.
  It is, therefore, right to maintain a sense of perspective. I mention these facts because they are in reality the background to the Bill.
  Like all hon. Members, and like most of the British people, I am a great lover of animals. Hon. Members who are in favour of the Bill may well ask why I oppose the Bill. I think that most people with any decent feelings about animals become indignant about something or other which in animal life may cause suffering to them as a result of human action. Some people get most worried about the export of horses, others about factory farming. Some people get worried about some field sports.
  What worries me most and gets me most "steamed up" is the life imprisonment of animals or birds in cages. Some years ago our children were given a pet hare. We put it in a cage where we thought it had reasonable space and plenty of room to turn round and move about. But the poor thing got so stiff that when we let it out of the cage and on to grass it could do no more than hop about. I said, "We will have no more animals in cages as pets".
  I have always thought that it is awful to cage wild birds. When I see a caged wild bird I am reminded of the old poem—
  " Thou poor bird mourn'st the tree
  Where softly thou didst warble
  In thy wanderings free."
  I sometimes wonder whether those who send in letters of protest about hare coursing feel no uneasiness about animals or birds in cages.
  The mere fact that I get worried about these things does not make me want to introduce a Bill to make them into criminal offences, however. Although I do not like the caging of animals, I realise that other people do not share my views. I regard this as a matter for their consciences—[Interruption.] —and not as a matter for—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have been listened to.
  Sir D. Renton: It does not seem to me that the various forms of indignation, which vary according to the individual, should each be made a matter for adding to the criminal calendar. Moreover, if it is sought to add some things to the criminal calendar, we must be clear in our minds whether there is a serious social evil to prevent and one which must be prevented by the whole weight of the criminal law and enforced by our hard pressed police forces. I do not consider that hare coursing is one of those great social evils.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said in what I thought was a brilliant speech, which commanded the attention of the House,
  "coursing is being hit not because it is cruel, but because it is weak ".
  It seems to me, therefore, that the Bill is misguided, for the reason I have given, that it does not affect a serious social evil which should lead to an addition to the criminal calendar, and for two other reasons. First, it defeats its own purpose in ways which have been forcibly expressed in speeches from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton and others, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). Secondly, it is a socially divisive Bill.
  Undoubtedly, one of the tragedies in discussing this subject is that so few people, a small minority, know the full facts about it. It is too easy, on the other hand, for millions of people to get to know only half the facts or a mildly distorted version of the facts. I can easily understand how public opinion builds up, as it undoubtedly has, but we in this House, in my view, have a duty to ascertain the facts, to consider them seriously, and then to make up our minds whether we have a real social evil to cure.
  Because I believe that the Bill is self-defeating and may, indeed, lead to more cruelty than it would stop, and because it is socially divisive, speaking for myself, though I am not a hare-coursing man, I shall vote against it.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I have the leave of the House to speak again?
  The debate has covered most of the points, including some of the arguments raised in the past. When I opened the debate, I covered as much of the ground as I possibly could, endeavouring to do it all in 20 minutes, I assure the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that I sat down thankfully, as he put it, because I had managed to do it. The Bill has my full support.
  I made clear that the Bill is directed against the competitive coursing of hares. I repeat that it is not the Government's purpose to make illegal the hunting of hares with beagles or harriers, or to interfere with the right of the farmer to set his dog on to a hare where the object is to catch and kill the hare for control purposes. The object of the Bill is to put down coursing where the purpose is to compare the relative merits of two or more dogs placed in competitive pursuit of a hare.
  To refer again to the report which has been so much quoted, which referred to Altcar, the suffering caused to hares coursed at such meetings of which it spoke comes within the definition of cruelty which we have adopted.
  My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has advised me that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made a remarkable speech. I am sorry that I missed it. He expressed much of what has been argued in debate on Private Members' Bills and by the Government tonight with precision. He stated that hare coursing is different from other blood sports and is more akin to those banned in the past. He also said that the Stable inquiry is concerned with the re-examination of the rules and regulations and is not looking into the basic facts we have been discussing—whether there should be hare coursing with all that is involved with the public present, with the cheering, the bookies, and so on.
  Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Gentleman has left the point on which I asked a specific question. We understand that competitive coursing is banned. The hon. Gentleman told us about a farmer letting his dog go after a hare. What about

  1597
  any other sort of running of dogs with hares? As long as it is not competitive, is that within the Bill, or does that continue to be legal?
  Mr. Rees: If it is not competitive in the sense I have indicated it does not come under the Bill. We are dealing with the sort of event taking place at Altcar.
  The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) raised the question of the wider implications of the Scott Henderson Report on whether all wild animals should be brought within the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, with special provisions for hunting, and so on. The difficulties of framing rules while permitting the sport to continue and effectively avoiding unnecessary suffering have proved to be virtually insurmountable. That part of the report has not been implemented, but it has no bearing on what we are considering. The Bill concerns the principle of whether it is right to inflict suffering on hares for the purpose of competitive coursing, irrespective of rules.
  The argument that the abolition of hare coursing would be a disservice to conservation, with the implication that farmers and others would no longer be
  able to tolerate hares on their land if they could not course them, and would exterminate them, is grossly exaggerated. It is rather odd to think hares are allowed only because of hunting. In fact, judging by all the evidence put to me in recent weeks the extent of coursing is not as great as all that. It has become smaller and smaller over the years.
  The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) spoke with his usual perception and raised the most interesting point of lack of concern for children, that there was more concern for animals in our society, and so on. There is much in what he said, particularly as regards those who condemn violence in this field and not on the television screen, also. But the Bill is concerned only with competitive hare coursing, which is an anachronism in our society.
  I ask for the support of the House in giving the Bill its Second Reading.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish)rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put.
  Question put,That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided:Ayes 197, Noes 72.

  Division No. 129.]

  AYES

  [10.47 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Alldritt, Walter

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Golding, John

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Gregory, Arnold

  Barnett, Joel

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Bence, Cyril

  Dewar, Donald

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Bessell, Peter

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dickens, James

  Harper, Joseph

  Binns, John

  Doig, Peter

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Driberg, Tom

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dunn, James A.

  Haseldine, Norman

  Booth, Albert

  Dunnett, Jack

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Boston, Terence

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hooley, Frank

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Ellis, John

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

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

  Ennals, David

  Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Buchan, Norman

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Cant, R. B.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Carmichael, Neil

  Finch, Harold

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Coe, Denis

  Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)

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

  Coleman, Donald

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

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

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexharn)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Forrester, John

  Judd, Frank

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Fowler, Gerry

  Kelley, Richard

  Dalyell, Tam

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

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

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Lester, Miss Joan

  Moyle, Roland

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

  Lever, Bt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Newens, Stan

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Ogden, Eric

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Silverman, Julius

  Loughlin, Charles

  Orme, Stanley

  Small, William

  Luard, Evan

  Oswald, Thomas

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  McBride, Neil

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Taverne, Dick

  McCann, John

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  MacColl, James

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Tinn, James

  MacDermot, Niall

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Pentland, Norman

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mackie, John

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Walden, Brian (AH Saints)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Macpherson, Malcolm

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Wallace, George

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Price William (Rugby)

  Weitzman, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Wellbeloved, James

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

  Rees, Merlyn

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Whitaker, Ben

  Marquand, David

  Richard, Ivor

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Maxwell, Robert

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Mendelson, John

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

  Winnick David

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Roebuck, Ray

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Molloy, William

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Mr. R. F. H. Dobson and

  Rose, Paul

  Mr. William Hamling.

  NOES

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  Onslow, Cranley

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Percival, Ian

  Astor, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Peyton, John

  Biffen, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Body, Richard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Hay, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Bryan, Paul

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Kirk, Peter

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Cooke, Robert

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Corfield, F. V.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Crouch, David

  McMaster, Stanley

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Macmllian, Maurice (Farnham)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Dean, Paul

  Marten, Neil

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Digby, Simon Wingffeld

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Emery, Peter

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Errington, Sir Eric

  More, Jasper

  Farr, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Murton, Oscar

  Mr. Michael Hamilton and

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Mr. David Gibson-Watt.

  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time—

  Division No. 130.]

  AYES

  [10.58 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Booth, Albert

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Alldritt, Walter

  Boston, Terence

  Coe, Denis

  Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Concannon, J. D.

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

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

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Barnett, Joel

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

  Crouch, David

  Bence, Cyril

  Buchan, Norman

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Bessell, Peter

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Binns, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bienkinsop, Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  The House Divided:Ayes 203, Nose 70.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Dewar, Donald

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

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn.

  John Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Dickens, James

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

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Pentland, Norman

  Driberg, Tom

  Judd, Frank

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Kolley, Richard

  Pounder, Rafton

  Dunnett, jack

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Edelman, Maurice

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

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Latham, Arthur

  Rees, Merlyn

  Ellis, John

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Ennals, David

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Richard, Ivor

  Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

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

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rodgers William (Stockton)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Loughlin, Charles

  Roebuck, Roy

  Fernyhough, E.

  Luard, Evan

  Rogers, George (Kensington! N.)

  Finch, Harold

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rose, Paul

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)

  McBride Neil

  Sheldon, Robert

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McCann, John

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  MacColl, James

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

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W hampton,N.E.))

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John(Deptford)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Mackie, John

  Silkin, Hn. S. C.(Dulwich)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Silverman, Julius

  Freeson, Reginald

  MacPherson, Malclom

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Steel, David(Roxburgh)

  Golding, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Goodhart, Philip

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

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Taverne, Dick

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Marquand, David

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Gregory, Arnold

  Maxwell, Robert

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mellsh, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tinn, James

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mendelson, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Harper, Joseph

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Molloy, William

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wallace, George

  Haseldine, Norman

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Weitzman, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Higgine, Terence L.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hooley, Frank

  Moyle, Roland

  Whltaker, Ben

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Murton,Oscar

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Newens, Stan

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Oakes, Gordon

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Ogden, Eric

  Winnick, David

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Orme, Stanley

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Oswald, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Mr. William Hamling and

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Mr. R. F. H. Dobson.

  NOES

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Astor, John

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Biffen, John

  Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert

  More, Jasper

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Body, Richard

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nott, John

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col.Sir Waltw

  Hawkins, Paul

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bryan, Paul

  Hay, John

  Paget, R. T.

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Percival, Ian

  Cooke, Robert

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Peyton, John

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kirk, Peter

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Dean, Paul

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Donnelly, Desmond

  MoMaster, Stanley

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whltby)

  Emery, Peter

  Macmilian, Maurice (Farnham)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Marten, Neil

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Farr, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  1602

  1603

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wets, John (Maidstone)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Mr. Michael Hamilton and

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Mr. David Gibson-Watt.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [4th May], on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
  Which Amendment was: In page 4, line 17, to leave out subsection (4).
  Mr. Speaker: New Amendments have been put on the Notice Paper since we last debated the Bill. I have selected Amendment No. 58, with which I suggest we take Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 61 and 62, and Amendment No. 63, which we will discuss with Amendment No. 22.
  Question again proposed,That the Amendment be made.
  11.8 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): This is a purely technical and consequential Amendment necessitated by the adoption of the Amendment which deleted subsection (3) of Clause 3.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15
  EFFECT AND CONTENTS OF ORDER
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in line 5, leave out from ' Act ' to end of line 6.
  Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to debate Amendment No. 28.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 12, with which I have suggested we should take Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
  Mr. Ian Percival: You have just said, Mr. Speaker, that you intended to call Amendment No. 58. Since Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 61 and
  1604
  62 are consequential upon Amendment No. 58, I assume that they will be called. It would not be the wish of my right hon. Friend or myself to move Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14, as they are alternatives.
  Would it be in accordance with your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were now to move Amendment No. 58, with which Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 61 and 62 are to be discussed?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Sydney Irving): I am sure that that would be most acceptable to the House.
  Clause 17
  INTERRELATION WITH ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES OPEN TO CREDITOR
  Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 14, line 2, leave out from ' debt ' to ' no ' in line 7 and insert:

  (a) no order or warrant of commitment shall be issued in consequence of any proceedings for the enforcement of the debt begun before the making of the attachment of earnings order and

  (b) so long as the order is in force.

  I move the Amendment with a degree of confidence not normally felt, because the
  Attorney-General has been good enough to say that he accepts its principle. Since all the Amendments which we are discussing have been drafted by parliamentary draftsmen, I apprehend that no point will be taken upon the drafting of them. Therefore, both as to principle and as to drafting we are in a more favourable situation than usual.
  The short history of these Amendments is that in Committee we proposed Amendments to subsection (2) of Clause 17, as it now is, but they were not acceptable to the Government. We failed to gain the day on that occasion, having been met with the reply from the Attorney-General:
  "…I must resist the hon. and learned Gentleman's blandishments. It seems to me that the only practical course where an attachment order is in existence, in order to avoid the kind of complications that I mentioned in my earlier submissions to the Committee, is for the creditor first to seek the discharge of the attachment order before he seeks to

  1605
  go to the remedies of committal or execution which would be open to him. I do not think any other course would be prudent."— [OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee G, 9th April. 1970; c. 194.]
  That was the view of the Attorney-General at the time.
  Believing at that time that we had little chance of persuading him to alter that view, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) and I tabled an Amendment the effect of which would have been to bring subsection (1) into line with subsection (2). I am happy to tell the House that a few days ago the Attorney-General was kind and generous enough to inform me that the Government had reconsidered the matter and, instead of disputing the issue with us as to whether subsection (1) should be brought into line with subsection (2), were prepared to recommend that subsection (2) should be brought into line with subsection (1).
  On that important issue of principle, the Attorney-General and the Opposition spokesmen were happy to agree. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was generous enough to say that, that measure of agreement having been reached, he would invite those who assist him, the parliamentary draftsmen, to give effect to this intention and table Amendments in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself.
  Because I think that the drafting of Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60 gives effect to that intention, and amends subsection (2) so as to bring it into line with subsection (1) and brings about a situation in which it is not necessary first to obtain the discharge of an order before proceeding in respect of any other remedy, produces a situation where, with the leave of the court, a judgment debtor may proceed at least to attempt to enforce other remedies without obtaining a discharge of the attachment order, I am happy to commend these Amendments to the House, in the knowledge that they will be endorsed by the Attorney-General.
  I believe that Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are purely consequential.
  The Attorney-General: Clause 17 deals with the inter-relation of alternative remedies open to the creditor. The Amendments are helpful to achieve the
  1606
  purpose of the Clause. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for the industry which he has applied to this technical problem, and I am happy to agree to the Amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:No. 59, in page 14, line 9, at end insert:
  (3) An attachment of earnings order made to secure the payment of a judgment debt shall cease to have effect on the making of an order of commitment or the issue of a warrant of commitment for the enforcement of the debt.
  No. 60, in page 14, line 13, at end insert:
  (4) Where an attachment of earnings order ceases to have effect under this section, the proper officer of the prescribed court shall give notice of the cessation to the person to whom the order was directed.—[Mr. Percival.]
  Clause 18
  VARIATION, LAPSE AND DISCHARGE OF ORDERS
  11.15 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 14, line 41, after deducted ' insert at any time '.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 15, in page 14, line 39,
  leave out from ' shall ' to ' unless ' in line 42 and insert:
  ' for the purposes of compliance therewith lapse (except as regards deductions from earnings paid after the cesser and payment to the collecting officer of amounts deducted whether before or after the cesser)'.
  and Government Amendment No. 17.
  The Attorney-General: Clause 18(4) provides that:
  " Where an attachment of earnings order has been made and the person to whom it is directed ceases to have the debtor in his employment, the order shall lapse…unless and until the court again directs it to a person (whether the same as before or another) who appears to the court to have the debtor in his employment."
  Clause 18(5) provides that
  " Where an order lapses under subsection (4) above it shall not be treated, for the purposes of this Act other than those of the subsection, as ceasing to be in force."
  It was suggested in Committee that as subsection (4) does not in terms refer to any purposes, it is difficult to know in what respects a lapsed order is to be

  1607
  treated, by virtue of subsection (5), as being still in force.
  Amendment No. 15 seeks to meet the point by providing that on the cesser of the debtor's employment the attachment order shall lapse for the purposes of compliance therewith. I submit, therefore, that the Amendment is unnecessary, but the objects sought by it are covered by Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
  Sir Peter Rawlinson (Epsom): I think that undoubtedly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said is correct and I am happy to accept his proposal.
  This is an absurd time at which the Bill and its complications, which will affect many people, should have to be debated by the House. It is of an extremely complicated and technical nature. I believe that the House is in for a great deal of criticism about the legislation that it passes and the difficulty of its interpretation by those who have to be able to understand it. At least we might have on record that it is at this late hour that we discussed these complex and complicated matters. I regret that the Government could not have found another time for us to discuss the Bill.
  Nevertheless, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed in Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 does, in effect, carry out what we are seeking to do, which is to try to make this matter more clear, enforceable and workable, so that those who have to carry out, execute and interpret hereafter the law passed in this House can the more easily understand what we are about.
  Mr. John Wells: As my right hon. and learned Friend said,
  we are discussing the Bill at a strange time. As a layman, may I ask the Attorney-General to clarify a little further what exactly " at any time " means. Does " any time " mean any time?
  The Attorney-General: It means precisely what it says—at any time.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made:No. 17, in page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
  (5) The lapse of an order under subsection (4) above shall not prevent its being treated as remaining in force for other purposes.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 61. The Question is that the Amendment be made. Those in favour say, " Aye "; to the contrary, " No."
  Mr. John Wells: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 61 was discussed with Amendment No. 58. It was an Amendment by the hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). It has been proposed and put to the House and it is in order.
  Amendment made:No. 61, in page 15, line 7, after etc.) ', insert
  ' or under section 17 of this Act '.—[Mr. Percival.]
  Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 15, line 9, leave out from not ' to first in ' in line 10.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take Amendment No. 19, in page 15. line 13 at end insert:
  ' incur any liability other than a liability to repay to his employee such sums if any as may have been deducted by him in respect of periods subsequent to the date on which the order ceased to have effect or the date as from or upon which the discharge of the said order became effective '.
  Mr. Percival: I echo what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson). This is an extraordinary time of day at which to discuss things which, to hon. Members, may seem remote and even perhaps a little difficult, but the minute the Bill becomes law these things will be of real interest to the people about whom we are talking.
  Curious as the hour is for discussing this sort of thing, and whatever the reason for us having to discuss it at this hour—whether it is to punish us for having 105 Members here, or to punish the other side for having had only 104 Members here—it behoves us to discuss it with something less than the levity with which I moved the first Amendment. I felt in that instance that I could indulge in a little levity because I knew that the Amendments were to be accepted. I am not so confident about these. In fact, I have substantial reason to believe that their fate may be different.
  Amendment No. 18 is a paving Amendment. The whole point of the Amendment is to clarify what will happen if an

  1609
  order is discharged, but before notice has been given to the employer that it has been discharged he has deducted from his employee's wages perhaps two or three weeks' deductions. This may not matter very much to us in this House, but to the employee who has had these sums deducted it might matter a great deal.
  The question is what is to happen about those deductions? In Committee, the Attorney-General, at c. 207, first agreed with me that it would be desirable that in those circumstances the employer should be under a liability to pay that money back to the employee, and I think that that is right. I do not think it is sufficient that that money may finally find its way back to the employee. It is important that it should find its way back to the employee quickly. It may mean very little to the employer, or to anybody else, but it may mean a lot to the employee whether he gets the money back this week or in six weeks' time; whether he gets it back from his employer, or whether he has to go to the court to get it back.
  Though I am a lawyer with a vested interest in the maximum number of applications to the court, curiously enough, like all other lawyers, I spend a lot of my time ensuring that the number of applications made to the courts is kept to the minimum. I think that we lawyers can fairly say that we spend a lot of our time doing that because we know better than most how much time and money can be wasted in applications which would be better avoided if there is any way of avoiding them.
  In Committee, the Attorney-General professed to agree with that objective, but then he said:
  "I have just had my attention drawn to what is contemplated. The employer must pay the money into court, and he is not then liable to repay to the man. The remedy for the man then lies with the court, apparently, and he must seek his remedy there. That seems to be the position."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman then generously went on to say:
  " It seems to me to be a somewhat cumbersome arrangement, if I may say so, and perhaps I ought to look at it, and see whether we can eliminate the necessity of continuing references to the court. Whether there is some means by which we can eliminate yet another stage of court reference, I do not
  1610
  know. I should certainly like to examine the possibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G,9th April, 1970; c. 208.1
  The purpose of the Amendments is purely and simply to make certain that that silly situation does not arise. If an attachment of earnings order is discharged because the payments have been completed, but before the employer gets notice of the discharge he deducts another week's or two or three weeks' deductions, instead of paying that money into court and the man having to go to the court and get it—less deductions all along the way, because there have to be deductions if someone goes through a cumbersome procedure like that—the employer should be under a liability to repay that money to his employee direct, without the nonsense of going to court.
  I apprehend that the Attorney-General will say that the Amendment is not necessary to secure the objective. I would only point out that if the Amendment were accepted there would be no room for doubt. It would be quite clear that the money was to be paid straight back to the employee. For that reason, whether it is necessary or not, and whether the same result might be achieved or not, under the Bill as it stands—and late as the hour is—I urge upon the Government the desirability of making it clear beyond a peradventure that in the circumstances I have outlined we shall not be faced within a few months with the stupid situation of money being paid into court and the debtor having to go to court to get it out again, with costs all along the line.
  It may be a detail, but this kind of thing brings the law into disrepute, and the one thing that our society cannot afford is to create more and more opportunities for bringing the law into disrepute. Whether the Amendment is necessary or not, could not we have it, for the avoidance of any doubt, and so as to make it clear that such a stupid situation as I have mentioned shall not arise?
  The Attorney-General: We have looked at this problem carefully and sympathetically, but we have come to the conclusion that the Amendments are not necessary and would create difficult complications. As the House has been told, subsection (6) provides that where an attachment of earnings order ceases

  1611
  to have effect or is discharged the employer who is responsible for collecting the money shall not incur any liability in consequence of his treating the order as still in force before the expiration of seven days from the service on him of a notice of cesser or discharge. The effect of the Amendments would be to make the employer liable, notwithstanding this provision, to repay to the debtor any sums which the employer may have deducted from his wages after the cesser or discharge.
  The possibility envisaged by the Amendment is seldom likely to arise. In practice, notice of the cesser or discharge of an attachment order will be sent to the employer within a day or so after the cesser or discharge takes place. It is, therefore, very unlikely that the employer will have made a deduction from the debtor's wages between the date of the cesser or discharge and the date on which he receives notice.
  It may take him a few days to give effect to the notice, particularly if his accounts are computerised, or the debtor is employed at a branch office. In the meantime, a deduction may be made from the debtor's wages which is no longer authorised by a subsisting order; but the whole point of giving the employer seven days' grace is to relieve him of responsibility for consequences which he has no practical means of avoiding.
  The employer is not obliged to treat the attachment order as still subsisting after its cesser or discharge. If he subsequently makes a deduction, he need not pay the money to the collecting officer. He can, if he likes, repay the money to the debtor or his employer. It is likely that in this rare event that is what he would do. But he ought not to be obliged to do so. Just as it may be impracticable for him, during the period of seven days' grace, to cancel the arrangements he has made for making deductions from the debtor's wages, so it may be impracticable for him to intercept the money before it is paid over to the collecting officer.
  This does not mean, of course, that the debtor will suffer any loss. On receipt of the money, the collecting officer, if it goes to the court, must of course repay it to the debtor if it was deducted
  1612
  from his wages after the cesser or discharge of the attachment order. Administrative arrangements will be made for the collecting officer to send the money to the debtor without his having to make any formal request, so there is no question of his having to go back to the court with a duplication of court proceedings. We have considered this carefully and we feel that what is provided for is the most practical arrangement.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Eyre: Having listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation very carefully, I feel that he is placing undue reliance on the ability of the county courts, especially in crowded cities like Birmingham, to deal expeditiously with thousands of matters of this kind. In my experience, county courts are often days behind in sending out notices in routine matters, so, in a great number of cases, difficulties of this kind will arise.
  The Attorney-General said that, in the event of a payment being made, the court will, of its own volition, refund to the man the money due to him, but this again, with respect, puts an unnecessary strain on the machinery of the court. The man may have to wait a considerable time for this small sum to be reimbursed and go through the machinery of the court. He could be seriously inconvenienced. These are small sums to us, but they could be important to the man concerned.
  Surely it would be much more efficient to accept the Amendment and allow the employer to reimburse this sum. Why involve everyone in this complicated machinery and these extra accounting items in the county court? It is making a demand on the machine which it cannot satisfy. Surely it would be better to give way and accept the practicability of my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion.
  The Attorney-General: The problem is to relieve employers of impossible burdens. Attachment of earnings already places considerable burdens on them, and to compel them to do this in seven days as a duty when the machinery of computerisation, and so on, may make

  1613
  it impossible creates practical difficulties in regard to a situation which we think will rarely arise.
  We have gone into this carefully with the court authorities and we believe that it would put an intolerable burden on them. Accordingly, I hope that the House will accept the reasonableness of what is proposed.
  Mr. William Wilson: My right hon. and learned Friend will know, from the experience of his office, that, in relation to attachment of earnings orders in the magistrates' courts, this problem has arisen already. If there is a real problem, as hon. Members opposite suggest, one would have thought that it would have shown up by now in this case. Has that point been investigated?
  The Attorney-General: There is no evidence of any difficulty in the working of attachment orders in relation to maintenance matters creating the kind of worry which concerns hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
  Tom Driberg (Barking): I was glad to notice that my right hon. and learned Friend does not share the devotion of the Ministry of Technology to computers, and that he realises that computerisation slows everything up and does not speed things at all, and that things are done much more accurately in old-fashioned handwriting than in any other way.
  However, I was a little concerned when I thought that I heard him say, at some point in this—to us laymen—slightly obscure process which he has been arguing about which the mellifluous Front Bench spokesman of the Opposition, that something would be done in one day. Does he really think that anything to do with the law or the courts would be forwarded, even by 5d. post, in one day or even in two or three?
  The Attorney-General: I said that the contingency of the matter coming before the courts—that is, where there has been an attachment of earnings taking away, say, some aspect of a week's pay—would be extremely rare. Generally speaking,
  1614
  an employer would be more likely to immediately pay back the money to his employee. After all, he would no doubt wish to keep on good terms with that employee.
  We are, therefore, in the realm of difficulties that are not likely to arise, and as the court will be holding money which it is its duty to pay over, it will wish to do that quickly. There is a good record in this sort of matter.
  Mr. Percival: We often hear used in this House the phrase, " We are in the realm of difficulties that are not likely to arise," but often, a few months after its use, we are either being concerned in those difficulties or seeing them reported in the newspapers. The sole purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that those difficulties do not arise. I am happy to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say they are not likely to arise, but I am not entirely convinced by his comments.
  My hon. Friends, not being in power, are not really in a position to deal with such technicalities. Responsibility in this matter must rest with the Government and, on purely technical matters like this, we must accept the advice of the Attorney-General. I hope that he is right, because the last thing we want to see is litigation or difficulties arising which could have been avoided. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made:No. 62, in page 15, line 12, after ' 9(2)% insert or section 17 '.—[Sir P. Rawlinson.]
  Clause 23
  CONSOLIDATED ORDERS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have further considered the representations made by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) about Amendment No. 63. Although he has not put it on his list of selected Amendments, Mr. Speaker has selected that Amendment; and as it is related to Amendment No. 22, I proposed to call the hon. and learned Member for Southport to move Amendment No. 63, with which it will

  1615
  be in order to discuss Amendment No. 22, in page 18, line 43, at end insert:
  (e) for enabling a creditor to apply to either of the aforesaid courts to exercise the aforesaid powers or any of them.
  Mr. Percival: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I beg to move Amendment No. 63 in page 18, line 32, at end insert—
  (c) for the cases in which any power exercisable under this section or the rules may be exercised by a court of its own motion or on the application of a prescribed person.
  This is another Amendment which I move with an unusual degree of confidence because the Attorney-General has been good enough to indicate to me that it would be acceptable, whereas Amendment No. 22 would not. Indeed, Amendment No. 63 has been drafted by parliamentary draftsmen, so that from both points of view, as with Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60, I have confidence about the outcome of my efforts on this occasion.
  We discussed in Committee in some detail the question to which the Amendment relates which is that of consolidating orders and the possible rights of an employer or creditor to apply for the court to exercise the powers which it will have under the Clause, which was added as a new Clause in Committee.
  Amendment No. 63 is far better than Amendment No. 22 in that it is much wider and enables the Government, by rules, to provide for all the cases we had in mind when we discussed the matter in Committee. As I shall later be critical of the Government and the Attorney-General, I wish to express my appreciation to them for their assistance in this matter, which has led to the substitution of Amendment No. 63 for, and which is a far better proposal than, Amendment No. 22.
  The Attorney-General: Again, I am most happy to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), and, again, I thank him for his assistance in the matter. The Amendment enables rules to provide for the power to make a consolidated attachment order or any other power conferred by the rules to be exercised not only by a court of its own motion but on the application of a prescribed person, be he employer or credi
  1616
  tor. It adds a useful provision to the Bill and I give it my support.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I wonder whether the Attorney-General can explain to a mere layman who has had some experience of this matter as a private citizen whether the provisions which we are now asked to support will make it easier—or, indeed, possible—for an injured party, who is awarded restitution in a magistrates' court from those who have injured him, to receive any moneys from the people who were convicted of the crime which has injured him.
  I understand that if one is awarded restitution by the magistrates, the chances of one's actually getting anything from the people who have injured one are fairly remote, unless one proceeds by means of private or civil action on one's own behalf. Will what we are now asked to support make it any easier for the courts to ensure that, having awarded a citizen a sum in restitution, he gets something back from the person who has injured him?
  The Attorney-General: The Clause provides for consolidating attachment orders. If there were an attachment order which had applied to a restitution which was ordered by the magistrates' court, the Clause certainly assists in enabling consolidation to take place, avoiding a scramble by the competitors for a limited amount of money that might exist on the part of the debtor. To that extent, it might be useful.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I understand that an attachment order is not automatic in the case of an award of restitution. How would the citizen proceed to get an attachment order to make sure that he got something?
  The Attorney-General: He would have to go to the court to apply for an attachment order. He would, first, presumably, try to recover the amount that the court had ordered should be paid by restitution through the usual means, by letter, through solicitors. If he failed, instead of the present system of a threat of imprisonment in respect of the matter, he would have to go to the court for an attachment order to execute. If there was any money in the " kitty " he would get it, but if other attachment orders had been made against the defendant in the

  1617
  particular case, he would have to take his share with the other creditors.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 18, line 38, leave out from excluding ' to end of line 43 and insert:
  ' provisions of this Part of this Act, section 9 or 20 of the Act of 1958 or Part III of the Act of 1952, but only so far as may be necessary or expedient for securing conformity with the operation of rules made by virtue of paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection,'.
  In the debate on Clause 23, members of the Committee expressed concern at the powers which were to be given to the rule-making authorities under subsection (3)(d) to modify or exclude from the provisions of the Bill the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958, and Part III of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952. It was suggested that that was not a proper use of the rule-making power. I undertook to consider the point, and the Amendment is the result of that further consideration.
  The Amendment differs from the wording at present in the Bill in that it excludes all but Sections 9 and 20 of the 1958 Act from modification or exclusion and it makes it clearer than the existing wording that the rules may only modify or exclude provisions so far as it is necessary to do so to conform to the rules which are made to enable attachment of earnings orders to be consolidated.
  I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), who raised the matter, will feel that we have met the substance of what was concerning him.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Percival: Again, I am happy to be able to say that we appreciate that this is a genuine effort to meet a point raised in Committee. I am not sure that it meets it altogether, but I appreciate that it is an extremely difficult point to meet fully. If we were to impose even more limitation, we might limit too much. I rise only to express appreciation the attempt which has been made and the result it has produced.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25
  ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 20, line 34, after ` or ', insert—
  ' in the case of an offence specified in sub-section (4) below'
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment the following Amendments can be considered: No. 24, in page 20. line 34, after or ', insert:
  ' if he be the debtor';
  and No. 25, in page 20, line 37, at end insert:
  (4) The offences referred to above in the case of which a judge may impose imprison-ment are—

  (a) an offence under subsection (2)(c) or (d). if committed by the debtor;

  (b) an offence under subsection (2)(e) or (f), whether committed by the debtor or any other person.

  The Attorney-General: Clause 25(3) provides that where a person commits an offence under subsection (2) in relation to proceedings in the High Court or a county court, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £25, or may be ordered by the High Court or the county court judge to pay a fine not exceeding £25 or to be imprisoned for not more than 14 days.
  The Amendment would confine the sentence of imprisonment to offences by the debtor. The effect would be the same, but would also enable an employer to be imprisoned for offences involving recklessness or dishonesty. The House may feel that this is a reasonable compromise, in the circumstances.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: As anyone who has followed the process of the Bill and previously the Payne Committee's considerations, will appreciate, here we come to the enforcement provisions. The enforcement provisions are difficult in a Bill of this kind which is trying to
  eliminate from our law imprisonment for debt and therefore to take away from our law that a person may be sent to prison for owing money. It seemed to my hon. Friends and me that to put in the Bill the sanction of imprisonment for failing

  1619
  to help to participate in a scheme abolishing imprisonment for debt was a trifle hard. It seemed that there would be more employers in prison than debtors.
  We had considerable discussion on this in Committee. Like everything else in connection with the Bill, it is easy to state general principles, but it is a complex and difficult matter when one is not easily able to come to conclusions and make the provisions required if one wants to maintain the principles of this part of the Bill.
  I should like to be assured by the Attorney-General that the Government Amendments provide only for imprisonment of the employer if there is really recklessness and dishonesty. By recklessness, I understand it is of the criminal kind of not caring whether something is true or false. We are imposing a duty on employers. We are putting a burden on them and I want to make sure that it is not an unfair burden.
  It was for that reason that we tabled Amendment No. 24. If the Attorney-General can assure us that this provision provides for imprisonment only for recklessness and dishonesty, it is a matter which we might be prepared to accept. I recognise that, if there is to be a fine, we must provide an alternative of imprisonment for a wilful, deliberate, dishonest and criminal, in the sense of reckless, refusal to obey the provisions of the Act; and there should be some sanction other than that merely relating to contempt of court. I want to be sure that the employer will not be in jeopardy of being imprisoned for anything less than wilful dishonesty and refusal to do what he has to do.
  In the legislation dealing with trade unions, which will be brought before the House shortly and which we shall spend long and weary weeks debating all the way through June and July, and perhaps in October, there is no sanction of imprisonment: it is only a fine. Why should there be a sanction of imprisonment on employers?
  It will probably shorten the debates we shall be having on the Bill relating to trade unions if we can be assured that under this Bill, which eliminates imprisonment for debt, those in breach of any of the provisions of the Bill when enacted will not be sent to prison unless
  1620
  it is for wilful and dishonest breaking of the law.
  The Attorney-General: I can certainly give that assurance. The sanction of imprisonment would apply only in respect of matters referred to as regards an employer in subsection (2)(e) and (f). They relate to knowingly or recklessly giving a false notice under Clause 16(2), or knowingly or recklessly—the language is used in the sense indicated by the right hon. and learned Member the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson)—making a false statement under Clause 16(2), Clause 20(1) or Clause 21. Such offences are analogous to contempt of court. That is why in this legislation it is thought proper to retain for them the sanction of imprisonment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made:No. 25, in page 20, line 37, at end insert:
  (4) The offences referred to above in the case of which a judge may impose imprisonment are—

  (a) an offence under subsection (2)(c) or (d), if committed by the debtor;

  (b) an offence under subsection (2)(e) or (f), whether committed by the debtor or any other person.—[The Attorney-General.]

  Clause 27
  CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF 1958 ACT
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 22, line 23, leave out from beginning to ' shall '.
  I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be convenient to discuss also Amendment No. 27.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is the wish of the House.
  The Attorney-General: These Amendments relate to the intention to introduce a Bill to consolidate all provisions relating to attachment of earnings. The House may think that that consolidation is highly necessary, as there will now be several Acts dealing with attachment of earnings. The purpose of the Amendments is to make that process simple.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for having examined and clarified this matter, which

  1621
  we raised rather hesitantly in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made:No. 27, in page 22, line 29, at end insert:
  (3) In section 1 of the Act of 1958 (introductory provisions setting out the scheme of Part I as respects registration in one court of a maintenance order made by another), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
  ' (1A) In the following provisions of this Act " maintenance order " means any order specified in Schedule 8 to the Administration of Justice Act 1970 '— [The Attorney-General.]
  Clause 28
  OTHER PROVISIONS FOR INTERPRETATION OF PART II
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment selected is No. 28.
  Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 23, line 3, leave from beginning to end of line 6.
  This is a highly technical—
  The Attorney-General: This Amendment was taken with Amendment No. 9.
  Mr. Percival: I am not sure now whether I should be raising a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or continuing the speech which you had called me to make.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention was a little irregular. I am in a little doubt myself. I thought that Mr. Speaker had mentioned Amendment No 28 with No. 9, but, if there be any doubt about it, I am bound to allow the Amendment to proceed.
  Mr. Percival: I think that he may have mentioned it in connection with Amendment No. 9, but one can fairly say, I think, that the House has given no consideration to Amendment No. 28 in any form. It will not take more than a few moments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unless you direct me to the contrary, I should wish to make a short speech.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to leave out the definition
  " ' the employer ', in relation to an attachment of earnings order, means the person who
  1622
  is required by the order to make deductions from earnings paid by him to the debtor ".
  There will be no difference of opinion on what the situation is. The meaning of the word " employer " in the Bill as drafted varies according to whether it has a " the " in front of it or not. Without a " the ", the word " employer " means what one would expect it to mean, that is, a person who has someone else in his employment. With a " the " in front of it, it does not necessarily mean that; it means the person to whom the attachment of earnings order is directed, even though he may have ceased to be the employer of the person from whose earnings deductions are to be made.
  I neither mean nor imply any criticism of the draftsmanship of the Bill. I recognise the draftsman's dilemma. He wants to find a phrase which means " the person to whom the attachment of earnings order is directed ", and, instead of repeating that every time when he wishes to refer to that person, he uses the expression " the employer ", whether that person so described is or is not still the employer in fact.
  It would be best not to do that, and I think it worth a few more lines, if necessary, to avoid it. Although we can understand the need for the words used, it is not easy to explain to laymen inside or outside the House that " employer " without a " the " means one thing and with a " the " it means something else. It contributes nothing to the standing of the law in the eyes of the people who matter in this context, that is, the laymen.
  Need we keep this definition? If accepted, the Amendment would at least avoid the rather odd mechanical or artificial state of affairs which I have described. If the definition could be done without—if that is not the most appalling piece of grammar—let us do without it. By accepting the Amendment, we should do without it, and all the better for that.
  12 midnight.
  The Attorney-General: We have looked carefully at this rather esoteric point. I make no complaint about the hon. and learned Gentleman's raising it, but we are satisfied that in the light of Amendment No. 9 any possibility of confusion between Clause 15(2) and the definition of the employer in Clause 28(1)

  1623
  has been avoided. Although I am grateful for the care the hon. and learned Gentleman has applied to this point, I am satisfied that an apparent anomaly is not a real anomaly.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 33
  PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SS. 31 AND 32
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 27, line 19, leave out sections 31 and 32' and insert ' this Part '.
  I believe that it would be convenient to consider with it Government Amendment No. 30, to leave out Clause 35.
  Clause 32(2) enables the High Court, in an action for damages for personal injuries, to make an order for the inspection, photographing, preservation, and so on, of property which does not belong to a party to the proceedings but which is the subject matter of the proceedings or as to which any question arises in the proceedings. By virtue of Clause 35 this provision binds the Crown, except the Queen in her personal capacity, although the court is precluded from making an order if it considers that it would be injurious to the public interest.
  Clause 32(2) gives effect to a recommendation in paragraph 367 of the Report of the Winn Committee on Personal Injuries Litigation, and is complementary to Section 21 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1969, which enables the High Court, before the commencement of proceedings, to make an order for the inspection, photographings, preservation and so on of property which is likely to become the subject matter of the proceedings or as to which any question may arise in the proceedings. Section 21 is not confined to prospective proceedings for personal injuries, but, on the other hand, it does not bind the Crown. A confusing and anomalous situation would result therefore when Clause 32 (2) comes into operation.
  Both Section 21 and Clause 32(2) will have to be supported by rules of court prescribing the circumstances in which an order may be made, and it is desirable that there should be a single rule or set
  1624
  of rules providing for the inspection of property before the commencement of proceedings and against a third party. during the course of proceedings. As matters stand, however, this could not be done without introducing qualifications which might easily be overlooked.
  The new Clause agreed to at our last sitting on the Bill on 4th May accordingly provides for Section 21 of the Act of 1969 to bind the Crown in relation to claims for personal injuries to the same extent as Clause 32(2) and the other provisions of Part II. That is to say, in prospective or pending proceedings for personal injuries the court will be able to make orders in respect of property belonging to the Crown, other than the Queen in her personal capacity, unless the court considers that compliance with the order would be injurious to the public interest.
  The substitution of the words " this Part " for " sections 31 and 32 " in Clause 33(3) is a consequential Amendment to enable the definition of " personal injuries " to apply to the new Clause.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: I am sure that every hon. Member engaged in this important piece of law-making knows exactly what we are doing in accepting this Amendment. This situation again illustrates the criticism which can be directed at each one of us for involving ourselves in legislating in matters such as this, which are not of political controversy and are of great importance to the citizens, at this hour of the night. These are very complex matters.—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), with his lucid mind, has grasped what the Attorney-General said and will be able to assist us in the debate on the Amendment. I am sure we would all like to hear his explanation.
  At first sight, the Amendment excludes Clause 35, which is the application to the Crown, but that is not the real effect because, as I understand, the Crown will be bound in proceedings in the case of personal injury, with the qualification that if there is involvement of the public interest it excludes the binding of the Crown.
  Public interest is a matter which the courts in other legislation have to take into account, but we should know what

  1625
  it is and what standard the courts will apply in their decisions about public interest. Is this a precedent? Could we extend other legislation in order to let the courts look at matters such as the Official Secrets Act in deciding where the public interest lies? Is it a precedent we should ordinarily have with regard to Crown privilege?
  Obviously, this proposal has, on the face of it, certain advantages, but, unlike other hon. Members who seem so clear about its purport, I must confess that I am still a little confused. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can assure us that it means that the Crown will not be put in any advantageous position other than the proviso with regard to the public interest. Perhaps he can tell us just what the application of the public interest means in this case before we leave that matter to the wretched courts to interpret.
  The Attorney-General: I think that the courts in relation to disclosure of documents in these actions for damages for personal injuries will be able to judge whether disclosure of a particular instrument or document would be contrary or injurious to the public interest. These Amendments are simply consequential on the new Clause adopted by the House last week. The words " public interest " are already to be found in Clause 35 and the new Clause adopted last week includes that conception.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 35
  APPLICATION TO CROWN
  Amendment made No. 30: In page 27, line 36, leave out Clause 35.—[The Attorney-General.]
  Clause 37
  EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT IN CERTAIN MORTGAGE ACTIONS
  Mr. Percival: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 28, line 40, leave out Clause 37.
  Now we come to an Amendment of some substance on which we hope we may hear from other hon. Members, in-
  1626
  cluding perhaps the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), who is taking such a close interest in our proceedings, very properly. Those of us on this side of the House who are members of the legal profession are dying to hear some laymen contributing something to these discussions. After all, lawyers exist solely to serve the layman and we would like to hear a little about what the layman thinks about these things. However, apparently hon. Members opposite would rather sit tight, perhaps so that they can get to their beds and then " scream blue murder " afterwards. But now is the time to scream a little and I hope that we shall hear some hon. Members opposite who have been making noises from a recumbent position making them from an upright position instead.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: A sedentary position.
  Mr. Percival: Sedentary? Rather. sedimentary.
  Clause 37 is a fascinating provision. For some time now we have had the principle that people should have a choice of proceeding in the High Court or the county court. If a person proceeded in the High Court he might be penalised by having to bear a proportion of his own costs. Never yet, so far as I know, have we accepted the principle that we should exclude a person from proceeding in the High Court. After all, the High Court of Justice was the initial court of justice. The whole basis of having a court of justice is that the court should be available to the citizen.
  If he used it wrongly he was penalised in costs, but it was available to him. We have for some time, particularly in Administration of Justice Bills in recent years, been endeavouring to persuade people to make greater use of the county court to reduce the pressure upon the High Court. To persuade people to go to the county court we have said that if they went to the High Court when they could go to the county court, they may do less well as to costs, even if they won.
  This Clause incorporates different principles. It does not say that those actions by a mortgagee for possession will in future be brought in the county court at the risk of the mortgagee as to costs.

  1627
  What it says is that apart from exceptions which are stipulated in the Clause no court other than a county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine that action. There is a principle in the Clause which requires discussion.
  Some may agree, some may not, but it ought not to be passed through the House without at least some discussion as to the advisability of it. I want to make three points about it. The remarkable thing is that excluded from this provision is the County Palatine of Lancaster, a part of which I have the good fortune to represent. This is an enormous area and once we exclude that we have excluded a large number of people from these provisions. In future, these people can take their choice, just as now they can proceed in the High Court if they wish and they will be at no risk if they do so.
  In addition, we are excluding the Greater London area which in terms of square miles and people who live in it is a very large slice of the whole country. We have the curious situation in the Clause that we are introducing something which is a departure from our normal principle. We say that in a particular area the litigant will not have the choice of courts subject to a penalty, but will have no other court than the county court. We immediately exclude from that two large areas which incorporate a great number of people. So we have the extraordinary situation that we are saying that there is one law for one section of the community and another for the remainder. It is always said that it is wrong to have one law for the rich and another for the rest, presumably on the basis that the law should be the same for everyone. I would like to hear a further explanation of why it is thought to be correct here to have one law for those who live in the Greater London area and in the County Palatine of Lancaster and another law for the rest.
  It will be no surprise to the Attorney-General to know that we would like to have a little more explanation on the second and third points. At the moment, the procedure for these actions and the process for dealing with them in the High Court is working extremely well. I am all in favour of seeking out processes which do not work and trying to improve on them.
  12.15 a.m.
  Like every other lawyer in the House, I do not suppose there is any time in the last 20 years when I have been on less than one committee which has been seeking that sort of end. Here we have a process which works very well. These applications are dealt with on affidavit, which is very convenient to the parties and saves money. Such is the machinery in the High Court that they are dealt with very expeditiously, which, again, is very much in the interests of both parties.
  It may be that there is a reason for providing other machinery, but we ought to be sure in these cases that when we say to people, " You can no longer use that very effective machinery; you will have to use other machinery ", the other machinery is as effective as the machinery of which we are depriving them.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) raised two queries. One was: what steps have been taken to estimate the burden of extra work which will fall on the county courts, and who will deal with this work in the county courts? Will these applications all go to the county court judges and, if so, will the county court judges have enough time to deal with these applications with the same dispatch with which they are at present dealt? Also, will the county court rules provide for a procedure which will be as expeditious and as cheap as the present procedure?
  Hon. Members opposite below the Gangway, perhaps, have not been concerned with actions of this kind. If they were concerned with such actions, they would be very interested to ensure that the advantages of the present speedy and cheap processes are not lost. We are a little concerned that we may be transferring this work to the county courts without ensuring that county courts can deal with it at least as expeditiously as the High Court and without further costs being incurred. It is for that reason that we have put down this Amendment to delete the Clause. We would welcome any further assurance which the Attorney-General can give us on any of those points.
  The Attorney-General: Clause 37, which is linked with the previous Clause, is for the assistance of mortgagors who are temporarily in difficulty, and it

  1629
  enables them to apply to the court for a delay in the processes which the mortgagee may seek to bring.
  The Clause provides that proceedings for the possession of a mortgaged dwelling-house situated outside Greater London shall be brought in the county court only if the value of the property is within the ordinary county court jurisdiction. In relation to a property of that kind in Greater London there will be concurrent jurisdiction between the county court and the High Court, and the same arrangements will apply in regard to Liverpool and Manchester in view of the existence of the Lancaster Palatine Court. The explanation is that the High Court may be far more convenient for mortgagors, mortgagees and building societies in its location than the county court. That is why this alternative place for the hearing of proceedings is retained.
  We have looked carefully into the matters raised by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and we are satisfied that the county court procedures for dealing with these matters will be the same as the procedures used in the High Court. As to the time that the proceedings will take, we are again satisfied that there is little in it as between proceedings in the Chancery Division and in the county court. We think that in the circumstances, what is proposed is the most practicable procedure.
  Mr. Eyre: I see from the report of the Standing Committee that the Attorney-General said that on Report he would have investigated the possibility of providing extra trained staff in the county courts to deal with these complicated matters. Will he tell the House the result of his inquiries?
  The Attorney-General: As I said, I have looked into the matter. We think that the registrar's court and the county court registry will be able to cope with the additional work involved, which is thought to be very small in volume.
  Mr. Eyre: The Attorney-General may be right in saying that, viewed against the background of the total turnover in county courts, it may be small in volume, but he should understand that these are highly technical and complicated matters, on which a great fund of skill has been
  1630
  built up in the High Court, and it would be difficulty for county courts to adjust themselves to these processes.
  Since the rules are to be exactly the same, it will mean that a similar fund of expertise will have to be built up in the county courts, and the Government's proposals may make an unreasonable demand upon the staffs of the county courts who already have considerable extra burdens thrust upon them.
  I ask the Attorney-General to be careful in checking the arrangements for staffing in the county courts and their ability to deal with these matters. I would have liked him to give a much fuller reply and further details, as he said he would.
  The Attorney-General: I am sorry if I have not satisfied the hon. Gentleman. We have looked into the position. A mortgage possession case which is brought in a district registry of the High
  Court in respect of property situated in the area of the registry is heard by
  the district registrar, who is the same person who, in his capacity as county court registrar, will be hearing such cases in the county court. So it will be dealt with by the same man with the same expertise, and we are satisfied that this is the best way of dealing with the matter, and so did the Payne Committee which investigated it.
  Mr. Percival: It is difficult at any time, let alone at this hour of the night, to translate into terms of practicality everything that is said. What the Attorney-General says about the district registrar and the county court registry being the same person may be true some of the time, but it is not true all of the time. Not all county court registrars are district registrars.
  The Attorney-General said that he had come to the conclusion that the volume of additional work which would be cast to the county courts would be so small that the registrars could deal with it. Speaking personally, I do not find that a very convincing answer. We are putting all sorts of extra duties on the registrar under the various Measures that are passing through the House. It may be that the Bill will not cast a great deal of work upon the county courts, but I thought that the object was to rid the High Court of a great deal of work.

  1631
  If the Measure will not do that, but make only a marginal difference, why are we bothering with it? If it will have more effect than that, have the Government catered for it? The difficulty will be discovered at a fairly early stage, and all we can do on this side of the House is to voice our disquiet.
  We are not convinced by the argument, but we have no alternative but to accept the explanation and hope that it is right. We had hoped to go to bed tonight better assured on the working of the Clause, but we do not seek to take it out altogether. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 40
  PUNISHMENT FOR UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT OF DEBTORS
  Sir P. Rawlinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 30, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following Amendments: No. 34, in page 30, line 6, leave out 'harasses the other with 'and insert 'makes'.
  No. 35, in line 7, leave out ' their frequency or '.
  No. 36, in line 8, leave out ' or publicly '.
  No. 37, in line 11, leave out ' distress or humiliation '.
  No. 38, in line 14, leave out paragraph (c).
  No. 39, in line 19, leave out subsection(2).
  No. 40, in line 24, leave out subsection(3).
  Sir P. Rawlinson: We now come to Part V of the Bill and the creation of a new criminal offence. Whenever Parliament creates a new criminal offence, it should always study the provision with care, consider the necessity for it and study the way in which it is drafted. Of course, a new criminal offence should be created when the need for the introduction of such a change is clear, but we must consider it with care, especially
  1632
  when, as in this case, a person guilty of a first offence may be fined £100.The offence deals with the harassment, or the harassing, of debtors. The provision says that anybody who makes a threat, or even a demand, in such a way as to humiliate or distress the person from whom the money is demanded, money belonging to the former person, for it is he who is owed the money, so as to cause humiliation may be guilty of an offence. This seems to be rather absurd.
  It is sensible that, as under paragraph (b), anybody who falsely represents that criminal proceedings will lie for failure to pay a debt, or falsely represents that lie is authorised in some official capacity, or who utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, may be and should be charged with a criminal offence.
  What I am getting at in the Amendments is that the provision goes too far as it stands. It is excessive to make it a criminal offence for someone to demand his money back in such a way that in doing so he humiliates the person who owes the money. I should be content if it were a criminal offence for someone to pretend to have an official capacity, or make up some kind of document to make it appear official, but I regard the extension of that to be going too far.
  By removing paragraph (a), we should make the Clause provide that it would be a criminal offence if a person made a demand for payment which, in respect of the manner of making such a demand or threat, was calculated to cause that person alarm. If it caused alarm and was calculated to cause alarm, it might be said that that was too offensive a way to get back the money owed. But it would be going too far and would be absurd if it were a criminal offence to say to someone, "Pay me the fiver you owe me " if doing so caused humiliation. It should be a criminal offence to cause fear.
  The Attorney-General said in Committee that there were " blue cards " and " pink cards " and various procedures which people engaged in getting their money paid back could use, and some of it is highly objectionable, but we must be careful when creating a new criminal

  1633
  offence and must recollect that it is a principle of the criminal law that it should have certainty and be applicable in circumstances which will not make the law look an ass. Paragraph (a) makes it look an ass. It should be altered in the terms of the Amendments so that causing alarm and fear is the criminal offence.
  12.30 a.m.
  The Attorney-General: These Amendments relate to the important Clause 40, which provides punishment for the unlawful harassment of debtors by what the Payne Committee called unreasonable extra-judicial methods for the collection of debts.
  If the Amendments were carried, the Clause would fall far short of dealing with the intolerable type of oppressive conduct for which certain types of debt collecting agencies are responsible which is condemned in the Payne Report. The result of accepting the Amendments would make the Clause ineffective to secure the object sought by it, namely. that it cannot be tolerated that just claims be pursued by unjust methods.
  In particular, the deletion of the key paragraph (a), proposed in Amendment No. 33, which is the only type of harassing conduct expressed in general terms, would leave the less reputable debt collecting firms with an almost unlimited field within which to use their ingenuity to adopt practices with the object of instilling fear and panic in debtors causing them anguish and driving them to desperation in paying their debts.
  If the Clause were reduced to the skeleton left by the Amendments, nearly all the types of conduct illustrated in the Payne Report would not be punishable under the Bill. For example, frequent calls at the home of the debtor leaving threatening cards; informing neighbours of the debtor or local shopkeepers about his indebtedness under the guise of seeking information; writing to the employer of the debtor about his indebtedness under the guise of avoiding the need for the debtor to absent himself from work to attend court; visiting the home of the debtor in the early hours of the morning under the guise of collecting chattels let under a hire-purchase agreement; visiting the debtor at his place of work; calling with an Alsatian dog to collect from
  1634
  the debtor; sending obvious demand notes for debts but wrongly addressed to the debtor's neighbours. The Payne Committee found this to be the kind of misconduct to which certain disreputable collecting agencies descend.
  The separate exclusions proposed are. I submit, unacceptable. Amendment No. 34 proposes the substitution of " makes " for " harasses the other with ". " Harasses " has the clear connotation of tormenting and is a useful word to retain in the Bill. It is a word which the court is capable of construing and applying.
  Amendment No. 35 proposes the omission from line 7 of " their frequency or I submit that the demand for payment of a debt may be reasonable and proper in certain instances, but what is a legitimate demand made on one, two or three occasions may, if it is constantly repeated and made with the object of coercing the debtor, cease to be reasonable.
  Amendment No. 35 proposes the omission from line 8 of " or publicity ". The Payne Committee found that certain collectors used unacceptable means, like informing neighbours or the debtor's employer and deliberately addressing demand notes to the debtor's neighbours —a thoroughly underhand type of activity. which I feel sure the House would wish to condemn.
  The retention of the words " distress or humiliation ", which Amendment No. 37 seeks to leave out, seems to me to be satisfactory as part of the other elements—namely, deliberate intention to create alarm, distress or humiliation on the part of the debtor or members of his family.
  Amendment No. 38 seeks to omit the circumstance where the collector masquerades as being someone in an official capacity. The ignorant and the elderly are sometimes liable to be impressed by claims by people of that kind. It seems to the Government that if there is a falsity of that kind it ought to be punishable under the criminal law.
  Mr. Percival: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman passes from that point, will he help the House on what is meant by " official capacity "? At col. 324 in the Standing Committee, the
  Attorney-General said:
  " That means representing himself to be a representative of the court, or something of

  1635
  that kind, or dressing himself up to look like a court official."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee G, 21st April, 1970; c. 324.]
  I suggest that it is important, when creating a criminal offence, that we only use words which are capable of a clear definition. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman help us on what is mean by " official capacity " in this context?
  The Attorney-General: I do not think that the words " official capacity " would give rise to any practical difficulty in a court, and it is preferable that the words should be as wide as they undoubtedly are because the ingenuity of unscruplous debt collectors may lead them to attempt to adopt many kinds of official character. For instance, he might represent himself as a Government or local authority official, or an official of the court itself. It is against that kind of misrepresentation that these wide words are directed, over and above what is provided for in the County Courts Act.
  The seventh Amendment has not been stressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I take it that the eighth Amendment, which proposes to omit subsection (3), is merely consequent upon the proposed omission of subsection (1)(a). If subsection (1)(a) is retained, it is obviously right to retain subsection (3), as that balances against the protection afforded to the debtor by subsection (1)(a), and it is designed to protect the creditor's legitimate interest.
  Looking at the Amendments as a whole, if they were accepted they would cut the ground from underneath a provision which is intended to eliminate a social evil, and I invite the House to reject them.
  Mr. Roebuck: I apprehend that the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) is anxious that I should participate in the debate. Such is my obliging nature that I am happy to accede to his request. I am not disturbed at the lateness of the hour. I understand that the debate was arranged so that he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) would be able to be present, as during most days they are busy working elsewhere. I am happy to be able to accommodate them on this occasion.
  1636
  I respectfully support my right hon and learned Friend's submission that these Amendments should be rejected. In my view, the Amendments represent nothing more nor less than a charter for the shyster solicitor and the strong-arm boys whom they employ. My right hon. and learned Friend read out a category of the sins in which these people have been engaged, and I thought it was astonishing that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who so often lecture the House and the country on the need for law and order, should have the impertinence to come here at this hour and suggest that this very well-thought-out Measure should be amended to allow unsavoury persons to act in a manner which most citizens would regard as being immoral, if not unlawful. I am happy that my right hon. and learned Friend is to make these immoral actions unlawful.
  The Attorney-General referred to people going round with Alsatian dogs. We heard all about that in the era of Rachmanism. The Government, with great realism, put down that sort of nonsense which the Conservative Party sponsored in one of its Measures. I am happy to give my support to this further Measure to make this a far more lawful island than it was under the leadership of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Sir P. Rawlinson: Before I go outside and get my Alsatian dog to turn upon the electorate in my constituency, I should say that we are grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) for intervening in the debate with his usual courtesy and grace. No doubt any shyster solicitor whom the cap fits will feel acute remorse on reading what he said.
  With respect to the Attorney-General, what we have to do here is to try to deal with the evil which we all acknowledge could exist. There is ingenuity among unscrupulous debt collectors. There is also considerable ingenuity among those people who get money out of other people, very unscrupulously and skilfully, and sometimes with sad consequences to those who are deceived into lending money. What the deceived person wants is his money back, and he may quite frequently make demands for the money to be paid back. He may say to the

  1637
  person who has borrowed from him, "I want that money paid back. You know that you owe me the money. Please pay it back."
  It may be a humiliation for the person who has borrowed the money to have that demand made of him. If it is made frequently it is likely to be humiliating, especially if it is made in front of other people. But does the act of demanding his money back make a person guilty of a criminal offence? We are surely not after that type of person. Surely we are after the type of person who tries to pretend that he is somebody whom he is not and who, by the use of some official-looking form, tries to blackmail somebody else into repaying money.
  Subsection (2) provides that
  " A person may be guilty of an offence…if he concerts with others in the taking of such action "
  and it is a very wide range of action. I suggest that although we may glibly accept it this morning as being appropriate for a criminal offence, if we were to bring it in in reference to a statute concerned with larceny or theft we should look at the words here with much greater care. The Attorney-General may say—and it is a technique often used by persons standing at the Dispatch Box—that if the Amendments are accepted in their entirety the whole Clause will be completely distorted.
  We have no intention of doing that. We want it to be an offence if someone creates alarm by this sort of action—by falsely representing that criminal proceedings will lie if payment is not made. We want it to be an offence if somebody pretends to be somebody whom he is not, in order to try to get money repaid. We want it to be an offence if somebody presents a document falsely representing that it has some official character. But I do not believe that it should be a criminal offence, carrying with it a criminal sanction, to go up to a man and say—perhaps on several occasions—" Pay me back the money you owe me. Give me back the money that you borrowed. You ought to pay it back."
  Mr. David Weitzman: Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman for-
  1638
  gotten the words dealing with frequency, or the manner of making such demands, or the occasions on which they are made?
  Sir P. Rawlinson: With respect, I have not forgotten them. If the matter was limited to the causing of alarm, I would accept it, but to include distress or humiliation is a different matter. To alarm someone is to put him in fear, but as for distress—it is always distressing to be reminded of something wrong that one has done, and it is also humiliating. But that is not the standard.
  I ask for precision. When we are making criminal law let us make it precisely and clearly. We have gone too far in paragraph (a). I am fully in sympathy with the aims of those who want to bear down on people who unfairly and improperly make demands for money, but we have gone too far here. I very much regret that the Attorney-General has not seen fit to accept certainly the first Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 41
  RECOVERY OF COSTS AND COMPENSATION AWARDED BY MAGISTRATES, ASSIZES,QUARTER SESSIONS, ETC.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 31, line 29, at end insert:
  (5) References in subsections (1) and (2) above to orders mentioned in Schedule 9 to this Act include references to orders made before the day appointed under section 54 of this Act for the coming into force of this section, except an order in the case of which the person entitled to payment has before that day begun proceedings for its enforcement; and in relation to such a case the enactments in force immediately before that day with reference to the enforcement of such an order shall continue to apply notwithstanding any repeal effected by this Act, without prejudice however to section 13(6) of this Act.
  For the purpose of the operation of subsection (1) above with respect to an order made (otherwise than by a magistrates' court) before the day so appointed, the order shall be deemed to specify the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which the person subject to the order for the time being resides.
  This Amendment is a transitional provision. On the coming into force of this Clause, there will be in existence orders for costs which have not yet been enforced. In some cases, the process of

  1639
  enforcement will already have been started under the present law, and the Amendment provides that, where such process has been started, it shall continue under the present law, but that where an order for costs has been made but no steps have been taken to enforce it before the appointed day, it will be enforced in accordance with the provisions of Clause 41.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 43
  PROCEDURE FOR RECOVERY OF LEGAL AID CONTRIBUTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 34, line 18, at end insert:
  (9) Nothing in this section applies to a legal aid contribution order made before the day appointed under section 54 of this Act for the coming into force of this section; and in relation to such an order the enactments in force immediately before that day and relating to the enforcement of such an order shall continue to apply notwithstanding any repeal effected by this Act, without prejudice however to section 13(6) of this Act.
  This Amendment, also, is a transitional provision, relating to cases in which a legal aid contribution order is made but not enforced before the day appointed for Clause 43 to come into force. Such orders will continue to be enforced under the present law, under Section 79 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2
  AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 1
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 43, leave out line 27.
  This is a drafting Amendment to correct a minor slip. Reference to Section 153 overlooked the fact that it had been repealed by Section 28 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1969.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 5
  DEDUCTIONS BY EMPLOYER UNDER ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS ORDER
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 48, line 36, leave out from ' the ' to end of line 42 and insert:
  following enactments—
  the National Insurance Act 1965,
  the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, or
  the National Health Service Contributions Act 1965
  (c) amounts deductible under any enactment, or in pursuance of a request in writing by the debtor, for the purposes of a superannuation scheme within the meaning of the Wages Councils Act 1959.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to correct two defects in paragraph 3 of the Schedule, which defines attachable earnings for the purposes of an attachment of earnings order as the earnings which remain payable to the debtor after deduction by the employer of income tax, contributions under any of the enactments specified in Schedule 6, amounts deductible under any enactments other than the Bill or in pursuance of a request by the debtor in writing for the purposes of a superannuation scheme within the meaning of the Wages Councils Act, 1959.
  Sub-paragraph (b) is defective because the enactments specified in Schedule 6, which deal with social security contributions and allowances, do not include the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1965. Contributions payable under this Act should clearly be excluded from a debtor's attachable earnings The first part of the Amendment accordingly substitutes for the reference to Schedule 6 a list of the enactments providing for the payment of contributions which are to be deducted from the debtor's pay in order to arrive at his attachable earnings.
  Sub-paragraph (c) is defective because the reference to amounts deductible under any enactment other than the Bill should be confined to amounts deductible for the purposes of a superannuation scheme within the meaning of the Wages Councils Act, 1959.
  Mr. Percival: This is interesting. Before the Amendment was made, to find

  1641
  out what " attachable earnings " meant, one had to look first at Schedule 5. Then, to find out what contributions under enactments were to be taken into account, one had to look at Schedule 6. So it was like the Land Commission Act, where one went from Section to Schedule and then from Schedule to following Schedule.
  I welcome the Amendment for one fact —instead of having to look at two Schedules, one can find all the information in one. Many Amendments have been made all along the line to the Bill since it started in another place. Now, at the eleventh hour, this Amendment seems to make substantial differences in this respect. Although it has the merit of transferring the Statutes which are being talked about from Schedule 6 to Schedule 5, it does not only do that. The contributions to be taken into account under these Statutes are very different from what they would have been without this Amendment. Indeed, only two Statutes will be common to the Bill when amended by this proposal. We read in the Schedule:
  "Attachable earnings ', in relation to a pay-day, are the earnings which remain payable to the debtor on that day after deduction by the employer."
  Under the previous paragraph,
  " ' Pay-day ', in relation to earnings paid to a debtor, means an occasion on which they are paid."
  As the Bill stands, unamended, that relates to contributions under the National Insurance Act, 1965 and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965.
  Those two Statutes are transferred From Schedule 6 to Schedule 5. But in Schedule 6 there were three other Statutes; namely, the Family Allowances Act, 1965, the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966 and the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act, 1967. Contributions under those Acts were caught under the definition of " attachable earnings ", but they are no longer to be taken into account.
  Why was it thought right, until this moment—until this Amendment was drafted—to take those contributions into account, while now it is suddenly thought not to be necessary? And why is the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1965, being brought into this exer-
  1642
  cise? Considering the substantial change being effected by the Amendment, it would be helpful to know why there has suddenly been this drastic change of mind.
  The Attorney-General: The answer is simply that no contributions are sought under the Acts which it is proposed to leave out, such as the Family Allowances Act, 1965. That is the explanation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 7
  PROVISIONS OF MAINTENANCE ORDERS ACT 1958 AS AMENDED
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 51, line 6, leave out from ' In ' to of' and insert section 9(4) and (5) '.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 53, in page 51, line 35, after 1970 " ', insert:
  and for " defendant " substitute " debtor "
  The Attorney-General: That is convenient.
  These are drafting Amendments. Throughout Section 20 of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958, the Bill substitutes the word " debtor " for " defendant ". The provisions of Schedule 7 as at present drafted make this substitution in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 20(4). Paragraph (a) is now being completely redrafted, and the Amendment will shortly be moved. The substitution of " debtor " for " defendant " having been made, Schedule 7 need operate only in respect of paragraph (b), and this group of Amendments confines the substitution to paragraph (b) alone.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 51, line 8, after Act ', insert:
  (a)
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time, Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 51, 54 and 55
  The Attorney-General: This group of Amendments arises by reason of the

  1643
  intention to consolidate into one Act all the law relating to attachment of earnings, with that Act coming into force at the same time as the attachment of earnings provisions of the Bill. This will greatly simplify the task of those who must make or administer these orders, since without this consolidation they would have to look for the law in various Acts. In preparing the consolidating Bill, it has been thought possible to simplify the wording of subsections (4)(i) and (ii) and (5)(a) and (b) of Section 9 of the 1958 Act, and these Amendments to Schedule 7 achieve this simplification. Section 9, as amended and simplified by the Bill, can then be included in the consolidating Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 49, in page 51, line 12, at end insert:
  (b) for the words from which made that order' to the end of paragraph (ii) substitute ' shall make the appropriate variation order, unless the debtor requests it to discharge the attachment of earnings order, or to vary it in some other way, and the court thinks fit to comply with the request '.
  No. 50, in line 13, after ' Act ', insert—
  (a)
  No. 51, in line 16, at end insert:
  'and
  (b) for the words from " proceed under the following paragraph " to the end of the subsection substitute " discharge the attachment of earnings order, or to vary it in some other way, and the court thinks fit to comply with the request " '.—[The Attorney-General.]
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 51, line 32, at end insert:
  (d) for subsection (4)(a) substitute—
  ' (a) the power to make an order in pursuance of a complaint by the debtor for an attachment of earnings order, or the discharge or variation of such an order, shall be deemed to be a power to make an order against the person to whom payment under the relevant adjudication is required to be made (whether directly or through an officer of any court) '.
  It may be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take, at the same time, Amendment No. 56.
  Under Section 43 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, where a complaint is made with a view to proceedings in a magistrates' court, a summons is served
  1644
  on the person against whom the court has power to make an order as a result of the complaint. Where a husband is subject to an attachment of earnings order to secure maintenance payments and wishes to apply by complaint for the order to be varied or discharged, it is desirable that the wife should receive a summons so that she may have an opportunity to oppose the variation or discharge. She would not, however, be covered by the expression
  " person against whom the court has power to make an order ".
  Section 20(4)(a) of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958, provides, in effect, that she shall be deemed, for the purpose of the complaint to vary or discharge, to he the person against whom the court has power to make an order and the summons would, therefore, be served on her.
  By reason of Clause 14(1)(d)(i) of the Bill, a debtor may apply to a magistrates' court for an attachment of earnings order to be made. A husband may make such application in respect of maintenance payments. But the wife may not, in every case, wish that such an order he made. There may be arrears and she may know that the husband has capital from which he could pay off the arrears immediately. For that reason, she may want a committal order to be made instead.
  It is, therefore, necessary to provide that not only where the debtor seeks discharge or variation, but also where he seeks the making of an order, the summons shall be served on the wife. thus giving her an opportunity to be heard. The Amendment achieves this by inserting in Section 20(4)(a) of the 1958 Act a reference to an application that an order be made in addition to reference to applications for variation and discharge.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:No. 53, in page 51, line 35, after 1970 " ', insert: ' and for " defendant " substitute " debtor "
  No. 54, in page 53, line 19, leave out from ' court ' to end of line 28 and insert:
  'shall make the appropriate variation order, unless the debtor requests it to discharge the attachment of earnings order, or to vary it in some other way, and the court thinks fit to comply with the request '.
  No. 55, in line 45, leave out from ' to ' to end of line 51 and insert:
  ' discharge the attachment of earnings order. or to vary it in some other way, and the court thinks fit to comply with the request '.
  No. 56, in page 55, line 12, leave out from beginning to ' and ' in line 16 and insert:
  (a) the power to make an order in pursuance of a complaint by the debtor for an attachment of earnings order, or the discharge or variation of such an order, shall be deemed to be a power to make an order against the person to whom payment under the relevant adjudication is required to be made (whether directly or through an officer of any court).—[The Attorney-General.]
  Schedule 9
  ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS FOR COSTS,COMPENSATION, ETC.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 58, line 30, at end insert:
  16. Where a person convicted by a magistrates' court appeals to quarter sessions against conviction or sentence, and quarter sessions makes an order as to costs to be paid by the respondent to the appellant.
  Part II of Schedule 9 is intended to list all instances in which costs, compensation, etc., may be ordered by a court to be paid by a person, other than a convicted person. An order for such costs, compensation, etc, is enforceable, under Clause 41(2), as if it were for the payment of money recoverable summarily as a civil debt.
  The case in which a person, convicted in a magistrates' court, succeeds in his appeal to quarter sessions and is awarded costs against the prosecutor was inadvertently omitted from Part II of Schedule 9, and the Amendment corrects that error.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  LEGAL AID
  1.0 a.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move,
  That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulations 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.
  These Regulations, which are made under the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, extends the facilities of the Legal Aid Scheme to all proceedings in the Lands Tribunal. It is a significant occasion because it is the first time that legal aid has been extended to a tribunal as distinct from the ordinary courts. It is a step recommended by the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee. As the committee pointed out, the Lands Tribunal is far more akin to a court of law than are other tribunals. Indeed, it is only perhaps for reasons of convenience and cheapness that its work is not performed by the Chancery Division of the
  High Court. Had that been the case, legal aid in this respect would have been available for these proceedings for the past 20 years.
  The jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal concerns the citizen closely in a number of matters of importance to him. It is mostly concerned with land valuation, for example, compensation for compulsory acquisition of land. Then there are rating appeals and the assessment of betterment levy. But it is perhaps because it may adjudicate the price of a property which a leaseholder is seeking to enfranchise under the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967, that there has been most pressure for legal aid to be extended to it.
  These matters may affect anyone, rich or poor. Some, like proceedings under the Leasehold Reform Act, are apt to affect the poor more frequently than the rich. The Government agree with the advice of the Advisory Committee that though few will qualify on financial or other grounds in applications for renewal or modification of restrictive covenants, capital gains tax, betterment levy and the like, there seems no reason to exclude the possibility.
  I am sure that the House will agree that it is right that the facilities of the Legal Aid Scheme should be made available to those in these proceedings so that

  1647
  they may have the help of a solicitor and counsel and, in appropriate cases, expert witnesses such as valuers, who may be particularly necessary in proceedings in the Lands Tribunal. I am happy to announce to the House that this is but the first of a series of improvements to the Legal Aid and Advice Schemes which the Government propose.
  As soon as possible regulations will be laid before the House increasing the financial limits for legal aid, legal advice and for claims short of litigation. At present, as the House knows, legal aid is available to those with incomes of £700 a year or less, after making prescribed deductions and allowances. It is proposed that the limit should be increased to £1,000. At present, the limit for free legal aid is £250 after similar deductions and allowances. It is proposed that that limit should be increased to £350.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Attorney-General cannot discuss Regulations that it is proposed to bring in. He may discuss only these Regulations.
  The Attorney-General: I agree, Mr. Speaker, but this is linked in a sense with the Regulations that the House is considering in that those who will benefit from them will do so as a result of the introduction of the proposals which I am indicatinig will follow. If you would allow me a little indulgence to deal with the concluding part of what I was saying, I shall be grateful.
  The Government would have liked to give effect to the proposals of the Legal Advisory Committee for a completely new system of legal advice and assistance which has come to be known as the £25 scheme, because under it anyone with the financial limits will be able to walk into a solicitor's office and get £25 worth of work from him without more ado. But that needs legislation and, unfortunately, the parliamentary timetable does not permit the introduction of the necessary Bill this Session.
  Therefore, the Government propose to make interim improvements to the Legal Advice and Claims Schemes on the lines recommended by the Advisory Committee in 1968. The existing advice scheme will be available to those with £9 10s. a week after making deductions and allowances, instead of £7 10s. a week, and the
  1648
  allowances and fees to those giving advice will be improved. The allowances for the claims scheme will similarly be improved.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make similar changes in the Legal Aid, Legal Advice and Claims Schemes for Scotland.
  The total cost of these proposed improvements will be about £1,550,000 in a full year. The present proposal to extend legal aid to the Lands Tribunal will cost about £150,000.
  The assessing of income and capital is done by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The inquiry into whether the case is a reasonable one to bring—this must be established before legal aid is granted—is done by committees of barristers and solicitors under arrangements made by the Law Society. They are also charged with the general running of the scheme. This they have done with considerable success for the last 20 years. As the Advisory Committee said in a recent report—
  " No alternative method of controlling assisted litigation would, in our view, be so effective. None could be so economical."
  I fully share this view and would like to take this opportunity to thank the Law Society and the legal profession for the work they do for legal aid.
  I am confident that the House will welcome these Regulations, extending the Legal Aid Scheme, as they do, to an area of particular importance to the householder and often of much complexity and accompanied as they are by the helpful announcement I have made about the increases in the financial limits for legal aid.
  1.6 a.m.
  Mr. Reginald Eyre: These improvements are greatly welcomed. I support the words used by the Attorney-General when he explained the need in present circumstances for legal aid to be available in the very complicated matters relating to capital gains tax and betterment levy under the Land Commission and also to matters under the Leasehold Reform Act. I stress that in every case that legislation is unnecessarily complicated. It is distressing that much of it impinges upon small people who need legal aid in the conduct of their affairs. It is an extraordinary thing

  1649
  that there is this complicated legislation, much of it related to a form of taxation, affecting small house owners adversely.
  I welcome the fact that help will be given to such people to enable them to deal with these complicated matters, but must express my strong view that in many cases it would have been better if the legislation had been simpler so that there would have been no need for these complexities to arise.
  The Attorney-General referred to the procedure which is to be followed in investigating applications. I should like an assurance that the present system of checking applications will be tightened, because there is great public concern about the recent case affecting Mr. Will Owen, a former Member of the House. The lay public are bewildered by what happened in that case.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. With due respect, I do not think that the Will Owen case had anything to do with an application to the Lands Tribunal.
  Mr. Eyre: But it had a great deal to with an application for a legal aid certificate, Mr. Speaker. An application was made based on income and capital. The ordinary layman cannot understand how that application came to be granted.
  The Attorney-General: I dislike interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I think I am right in apprehending that that matter is being investigated by the court. The hon. Gentleman, with his well-known fairness, may think it better not to pursue the point in relation to that case.
  Mr. Eyre: Naturally, I accept the Attorney-General's advice, because I have no intention of trespassing improperly upon that case. But the case has been reported. Although all of us would readily accept that help should be available in proper cases, it is necessary that great care should be taken to ensure in the expenditure of public money that the money is allocated only in proper cases.
  There must be a strong assurance that the system will properly take these matters into account. People must feel that the system operates fairly. I realise that it must operate speedily on occasion, but there is need for an assurance that no grasping impropriety is exercised
  1650
  by applicants which would operate to the detriment of the public interest. Will the Attorney-General give an assurance that that side of the matter will be looked at, to reassure the public?
  The Attorney-General: Certainly. It is being reviewed all the time. I think that the House agrees, on the whole, that the legal aid service, which the Labour Government introduced after the war and which we are extending now, has been an invaluable social service which has made the courts open to those who would otherwise have been denied a chance to assert their rights.
  1.11 a.m.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) has given a somewhat tepid welcome to the Regulations. We on this side give them a cordial and unqualified welcome, and we thank the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend for introducing this important addition to the services available by way of legal aid.
  In particular, those of us who fought the Opposition line by line on the Leasehold Reform Bill will give the Regulations a warm welcome. During the passage of that Bill, we drew attention to the great difficulties which might befall lessees who would not have the opportunities of having legal representation and advice on valuation and so on which would be likely to be available to landlords.
  We pressed that some amelioration of this kind should be made. We are grateful to the Government for now making it. I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members representing leasehold constituencies when I say that our constituents will be most grateful for it.
  1.12 a.m.
  Mr. William Wilson: All to often in cases involving leasehold reform or compulsory purchase orders by local authorities, practising lawyers are compelled to say to their clients, " You have a case here, but you cannot afford to fight it ". These Regulations will give to practising lawyers an opportunity to battle back at landlords and local authorities on their own terms. and for that reason they are to be widely welcomed.
  1.13 a.m.
  Mr. R. W. Brown: Much the same applies to cases under the Highways Act, 1961. It has become increasingly difficult for any person who falls over on the highway to take action against a local authority, because, under the legal aid system, assistance is refused according to a case decided in 1968. I hope that under the extension now proposed it will be easier for people to proceed against local authorities than it is at the moment.
  1.14 a.m.
  Mr. Ian Percival: There are aspects of this matter about which it is no exaggeration to say that the two sides must agree to differ. As for the reasons which led to the need for this extension, I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre). It is deplorable that people of humble means have been drawn into expensive and protracted disputes of the kind which come before the Lands Tribunal. It is the result of some of the very complicated legislation passed in the last few years. But we had the battle about that on the legislation itself.
  The Government having passed it, and having created a situation in which people of humble means find themselves in difficulty if they do not have legal assistance in fighting their cases, we on this side are just as pleased as hon. Members opposite that the present Regulations will be of help to them.
  I say no more about the Regulations. I suppose that that is all that is strictly speaking in order, Mr. Speaker. But as you permitted the Attorney-General the indulgence of saying something—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will learn from this, perhaps, the unwisdom of seeking an indulgence.
  Mr. Percival: I would only say that I was a little sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduced a slightly political note when he referred to the legal aid system introduced by the Labour Government. Hon. Gentlemen wag their heads, and the Leader of the House is joining in this party point. I do not mind, because it enables me to make one, too. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Leader of the
  1652
  House wishes to make a contribution while standing instead of only sitting.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I was merely saying that it was a fact that a Labour Government introduced the system.
  Mr. Percival: It is a fact, but it is a pity when one political party seeks to make political capital in claiming credit for the fact.
  This was a Measure introduced with the agreement of all parties and the cooperation of both parts of the profession. It is fair dos for the Labour Party to seek the credit to the exclusion of the Conservative Party, especially in the present climate, but it would have been more generous to bring everyone into the act. It was something in which everyone had a part.
  I am sure that the Attorney-General will not mind my making a slightly political point here. This seems an extraordinary time at which to announce far-reaching changes which cannot be introduced this Session, and, therefore, probably in the lifetime of this Parliament, changes which the Government, therefore, may be quite unable to introduce, and which we cannot discuss because to do so would be out of order.
  If what we all expect to happen does occur, this Parliament may shortly be replaced by another, and if the result is what we on this side of the House expect I can assure hon. Members that it will be our intention to extend the scope of legal aid as far as practicable. Whether that will be in precisely the form the right hon. and learned Gentleman has announced tonight, I cannot say, because we have only just heard what is proposed. But if, as I apprehend may be the case, the Government cannot implement the intentions they have expressed in the further announcement tonight, the public may rest assured that the Conservative Government will do something similar. At all events, it is our aim to extend legal aid.
  I feel that we are very mean about the administration of justice. We tend to think that we must be careful about every penny spent in the administration of justice and legal aid. I think the other way. Of course, we should practise

  1653
  economy. Of course, we should make sure that money is well spent, but this is one field in which we should be very careful not to be mean. I am sure that there is scope for extending the benefits of this system.
  I am happy, on behalf of this side of the House, to extend a welcome to that part of what the Attorney-General said dealing with the strict terms of the Regulations.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Legal Aid (Extension of Proceedings) Regulation 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.

  TONGA BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  1.20 a.m.
  Mr. Ian Percival: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance on this Motion? Is there any way in which, within the rules of order, one could extend a welcome to the Bill? It would be a pity if the Bill, which is granting to a friendly nation something which we believe it wishes to have, were passed without comment and without it being made clear how much we welcome it and how well we wish those whom it affects. Would I be in order in voicing such sentiments?
  Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the welcome which the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has expressed for the Bill, which he shares with every other right hon. and hon. Member. Such welcomes were expressed on the Second Reading of the Bill and unless there is a Motion on the Order Paper I have to put the Motion for the Third Reading formally. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed what is in the hearts of all of us in the House in welcoming the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

  SWAZILAND (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
  1.22 a.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a gift of a Speaker's Chair to the Swaziland House of Assembly, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  The gift to Swaziland follows the now established tradition of the House of Commons, which we are glad to honour today, that we send a gift to the Legislature of a Commonwealth country to mark that country's attainment of independence within the Commonwealth.
  The parliamentary authorities in Swaziland, who have, naturally, been consulted, welcomed the proposal to present such a gift and a Speaker's Chair has been designed and manufactured. For the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members, the Chair is on display in the House.
  If the House accepts the Motion, as I am sure it will wish to do, arrangements will be made by Mr. Speaker for a small delegation from the House to present the gift. We understand that the presentation can conveniently be made during the first week in September.
  I therefore commend the Motion to the House in the expectation that it will be accepted as an expression of our friendship and good will towards the House of Assembly of Swaziland.
  1.24 a.m.
  Mr. Ian Percival: I rise only to support and welcome the Motion. I am, however, in a difficulty. We are entirely in agreement so there really is no necessity to say anything, but if we remain silent, this might be regarded by some as showing less than enthusiasm or something less than warm support for what is being done, and that would be as unfortunate an impression as it would be inaccurate.
  On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to let it be known to those concerned that we do not join in this Motion as a formality, but with warmth and enthusiasm and in the hope that they accept

  1655
  this gift not as an isolated act, or an act of largesse or anything of the kind, but a symbol of our lasting regard for them.
  We do not simply present this Chair and forget about it, and we hope that our friends will not simply receive it and forget about it. We hope that just as we in this House look with affection upon the furniture that was given to this House when it was rebuilt, by our friends of the Commonwealth, so, too, our friends in Swaziland will look at this piece of furniture with affection and as something which daily joins them closer to us. I appreciate that in absolute terms there is no necessity to say anything because we are in agreement, but I felt it necessary to say that because we want our friends there to know that we do not simply join in this as a formality.
  We hope that this gift will give as much pleasure to those who receive it as it gives us in the giving of it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a gift of a Speaker's Chair to the Swaziland House of Assembly. and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  HOLLOWAY PRISON (REBUILDING)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dobson.]
  1.26 a.m.
  Mr. Michael O'Halloran: The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to discuss the rebuilding of Holloway Prison. The London Borough of Islington is one of London's inner boroughs and was one of the first parts of London to be developed. When Holloway Prison was originally built in 1888 it was right on the edge of urban London, overlooking fields and pastures. By the end of the 19th century, Islington had been built up. There were no more fields. Ever since that time all new construction has involved redeveloping
  1656
  and renewing out-dated and unwanted buildings. The pace of development has been very rapid and brought with it large numbers of people.
  By the turn of the century Islington was suffering from the problem which has plagued it ever since—a very large population, poorly housed with no room to build new homes or provide vital facilities, such as open spaces without first demolishing and clearing areas. Moreover, it invariably became necessary to move out more people than it was possible to rehouse on the same site. As a result of modern health regulations 19th century standards cannot be tolerated today. Islington was built up before local authorities could build council homes, before proper open space standards were introduced, before the motor car had arrived and before services such as day nurseries, libraries and old people's homes had been established.
  Much progress has been made, particularly since the election of the present Government. Locally we have benefited from high council building subsidies, rate support grants, the Rent Acts and the urban programme. But problems still remain. There are nearly 10,000 families on the waiting list for council homes.
  People in desperate circumstances. Families of seven people in one damp basement room are told that nothing can be done to help. In any other city they would be rehoused immediately. There is less open space in my constituency than in any other in London.
  Not one Islington football team, with the notable exception of Arsenal, has ever enjoyed a home match. There is not a single footpath pitch available. A total of 236,000 people are living on 5·3 square miles and the shortage of land is desperate. Nor should anyone imagine that Islington is a community of affluent people, able to travel freely to enjoy facilities not available in their own borough. A council survey of families on the waiting list showed that the most earned between £16 and £18 per week.
  As I have outlined it, the problem facing Islington is one of a shortage of available land. It is very scarce in the borough. Every decision to use it or redevelop it must be measured against this background. This is the problem

  1657
  which determines our priorities for action. It is against this background that the decision to redevelop Holloway Prison on its present site in Islington should be viewed and seen to be the public scandal which it is.
  Should this plan proceed, it would permanently deprive nearly 1,300 people of a decent home, and their children of somewhere to play. The opportunity for Islington Council to build homes on land where it has not first been necessary to rehouse more families than will be able to return is the only sure hope that it will be able to solve the many problems arising from its earlier development.
  One opportunity has already been lost. Railway land at Monnery Road, which had not been in use for years, was not passed to the council for the good of the community, but was leased by British Rail to Shell Mex and B.P. as an oil storage depot for the whole of North London. The heartless and temporary Tory majority on Islington Council actively assisted this company to proceed with this despicable scheme, to the detriment of my constituents. This must not happen again.
  Such is the pressure for land in Islington that it is costing the council between £80,000 and £100,000 per acre to buy residential land. In addition, it must meet the cost of rehousing those living there, together with the building costs. On this basis, the Holloway Prison site is worth over £1 million. Can the Home Office really justify spending £1 million for a site for prison facilities? I suggest that it would not try, because there would be a public outcry. Yet this is, in substance, what it is trying to do at present, although it is cloaked by statements about the original purchase price of £1,000. I hope that we can be told the price of the last site purchased for a prison. I cannot imagine that it was anywhere in the region of £1 million.
  No one would question the urgent need for modern prison facilities. The issue that I want to raise is the location of those facilities. No doubt, remand facilities for women are needed in the London area, but there are 31 other London boroughs in addition to Islington, although few have problems approaching the magnitude of that borough's. We all know that prisons are not popular, but,
  1658
  equally, there can be no doubt that Islington has more than a fair share. There are five London prisons and 32 London boroughs. But at present Islington provides land for two prisons, not just Holloway but Pentonville, too. This situation cannot be tolerated any longer. An enlightened prison policy does not depend on using the Holloway Prison site. Decent homes for Islington cannot be built without it. The need to rebuild to modern standards is a good opportunity for the Home Office to make this possible. This opportunity must not be lost.
  The key question turns on the reasons that the Home Office can give us to justify the use of this site. It is difficult to think that there is any other reason than sheer administrative convenience. It is easier to redevelop a site that they already own than search for a more appropriate one. Home Office interests seem to be riding roughshod over the housing needs of my constituents. We have been told that other sites have been considered. If that is so, I hope that we shall be told the names of those sites and the reasons why they were rejected in favour of Holloway. Any unwillingness to disclose this information will only confirm my belief that this was the only site considered. It will then be clear that administrative convenience is to be ranked higher than contributing to the solution of desperate human housing problems.
  Before going any further, I must ask the Minister to assure himself and the House that he does, in fact, have a legal right under the Prison Acts to redevelop Holloway Prison without planning permission from the local authority and without first securing the local authority's agreement.
  No doubt the Minister will sympathise with my case and with the plight of my constituents. I hope that he will look again at this proposal, reconsider the scheme and match his sympathy with action.
  1.35 a.m.
  Mr. R. W. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) has kindly allowed me five minutes of his time to support him in his plea. I was privileged to lead a deputation from the local council to the Home Office in April, 1969. The Home Office frankly expressed

  1659
  its views and the council expressed thanks to me for having tried to do my best. It is, therefore, with regret that I record that the council is not making the best use of the land it has.
  One would have more understanding of the council's problems if it was using the land in my constituency and in other parts of Islington to the full. The council has wilfully refused to do so. Land which was purchased by the council in 1968 is being sold, and for two years—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a matter which the hon. Member must raise with his local council.
  Brown: I was trying to illustrate to the House that whilst one can argue that it is too much to have two prisons in the Borough of Islington, it is deplorable that the local authority, while the fight is going on, is not using the land it has and, what is more, is selling it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The use or misuse of the land by the local authority is a matter for the local authority.
  Mr. Brown: I have done my best to raise the matter of the prisons and their siting. When the House was discussing the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill a site at Rainham, in Essex, was mentioned. The leader of the Rain-ham Conservative Council has shown no interest in persuading the Islington Council to ask the Minister to site Pentonville or Holloway in his area. It is all very well for an area to say that it does not want a prison, but when it has to designate the area where it is to be interest breaks down.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will reiterate the undertaking given by the Home Office to the deputation which I presented. Although Holloway, for the specific reasons which the council at that time said it understood, cannot be moved, I hope that the Minister will reiterate the undertaking given by the Home Office to the deputation that Pentonville Prison will be moved from Islington. Pentonville occupies 11·3 acres and Holloway 12·9 acres. The size of site that the Islington Council is asking for will be available if Pentonville can be moved.
  It is unreasonable for a borough council to have two prisons within its area. This matter has been going on for years. It ill behoves a Conservative council to
  1660
  complain when a Conservative Government for years failed to take any action. I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing in an enlightened policy for prisons to make them less wretched than they are.
  1.40 a.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): In the course of my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington. North (Mr. O'Halloran) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown), it will be my duty to explain to them, and through them to their constituents, the reasons why the Government have been unable to relinquish the prison site at Holloway for local authority purposes. But I must say at once that the Government have every sympathy with the motives of the local authority and the hon. Members in pressing for the acquisition of this site.
  The Government are fully aware of the pressing housing problems in Islington. This was an important factor to which fullest consideration was given by the Home Secretary before he reached the decision announced to Parliament in December, 1968. Prior to that date, and subsequently, there were a number of discussions at all levels with the local authority and the Greater London Council at which the situation was fully explored.
  In the full knowledge, therefore, of the need in Islington for sites on which to build houses, the Government have been reluctant to be unable to respond to the request for the surrender of this site. But the Home Secretary has a responsibility, that goes wider than local interests, for the custodial treatment of those women and girls who are sent into the care of the prison service by the courts.
  Before coming to the specific reasons why it was decided to redevelop the Holloway site, it is necessary to put the proposal into its full context. The policy for the custodial treatment of women and girls that was announced to Parliament in December, 1968, was the result of a comprehensive review of the problem. The conclusion that was reached was that by devoting a reasonable amount of the total resources available to the prison system it should be possible, within a decade, to provide the necessary facilities for a custodial system for women

  1661
  and girls that would serve for the foreseeable future.
  Those hon. Members who have visited the prison at Holloway will know that, although it has served the country exceedingly well for more than a century, the buildings are out of date and are deteriorating. They are quite unsuited to the modern methods of treatment that the prison service of today is trained to employ. The new policies demand an entirely new establishment suitably designed and equipped to deal with existing and new problems according to our latest knowledge and in an acceptable environment.
  The new policy, now being put into effect, for women and girls in custody is based on the premise that most of them require some form of medical, psychiatric or remedial treatment. The female establishments in the prison system are, therefore, being reorganised to provide the necessary facilities. Because of the relatively small numbers of women and girls—less than 1,000—who are received into penal custody and their geographical scatter, it is not possible to locate them all near to their homes. This creates problems not only for the women in custody, but for their families, legal advisers, the probation service and others concerned with welfare and rehabilitation.
  The system is, therefore, being redesigned to provide a complex in the north and another in the south, each with a full range of facilities for all penal purposes, of establishments both closed and open in character. Holloway will be the principal establishment and, apart from providing the closed prison and remand centre facilities for the southern complex, will serve a country-wide purpose through the provision of certain facilities that it is not at present possible to duplicate elsewhere. As such, Holloway will form the hub of the female penal system being by far the most important establishment within it.
  But, we have been asked, not unreasonably, why it is necessary to redevelop the new, medically orientated establishment, at Holloway. It has been suggested that the new establishment might be better located elsewhere, thus
  1662
  releasing a valuable urban site for development by the local authority. Hon. Members who have read the Adjournment debate last night about the closure of the women's wing at Brockhill will have learnt something about the insuperable problems that arise from trying to manage even a very small establishment for women in an area only 15 miles from the centre of Birmingham.
  Experience elsewhere has confirmed the impossibility, as at Brockhill, of maintaining the essential basic services for a female establishment of the kind envisaged in a rural area or one even marginally remote from specialist resources. Given, also, that Holloway must serve the London courts, there was no alternative but to redevelop the new establishment at a site fairly near to the centre of London. The new establishment will be basically a secure hospital and will make considerable demands on medical and psychiatric resources which must be reasonably near to it.
  By far the most difficult problem that the Home Office prison department faces in pressing the development of new penal establishments is the acquisition of sufficiently large sites, suitable for its purposes, in the face, frequently, of local opposition, or of competing demands for other laudable social objects. When, therefore, the decision was faced to redevelop the Holloway site, the Home Office had to recognise that it was virtually impossible to expect to secure a site of sufficient size in a suitable location in the capital.
  Mr. R. W. Brown: There was such a site—the Barbican site in the City of London. They will not cater for housing in their area. They house in our constituencies. Why did not my hon. Friend persist that they should have the prison within the boundary of the City of London?
  Mr. Morgan: It is well known that whenever a borough in London, or elsewhere, suggests that a prison site should be established in another borough, that borough, in turn, suggests a site in a third borough, and so on, until there is a chain of possible sites running across the whole country to be examined.
  Hard experience has shown that years can be wasted in pursuing suggested sites

  1663
  only to be frustrated at the end of the day when the planning interests are resolved. It would have been impossible to say when, if ever, a suitable alternative would have become available. I am sure that both my hon. Friends appreciate how very much time is of the essence in this connection.
  In view of this difficult situation and our responsibilities there was no alternative, therefore, but to redevelop on the site we possessed at Holloway. We have had to accept, because there is no alternative accommodation for most of the women and girls at Holloway, that the establishment must remain fully operational throughout the rebuilding period. I need hardly emphasise the technical and operational problems inherent in that decision which we should have avoided if it had been at all possible.
  All of this has been explained many times to the authorities at Islington and to the Greater London Council, and I think that they are not unsympathetic to our problems and would be anxious to help if they could. But they have their responsibilities, too, and it is entirely understandable, therefore, that they should press the interests of the people of Islington and London in regard to the use of prison sites. Islington, despite having, as has been said, one of the most difficult housing problems in the capital has two prison department sites within its boundaries. They are, therefore, obviously interested also in the removal of Pentonville Prison elsewhere.
  This, in the long term, may be possible since its function, and its demands on specialist resources, are different from those of Holloway where there will be the most modern and sophisticated medical and psychiatric facilities for the treatment of a much wider range of people. But in acknowledging the needs and interests of the people of Islington, I must ask the House to look at these against the general background of the severe and increasing pressure on the penal system and of the special needs, in regard to women and girls, that I have mentioned in respect of the redevelopment at Holloway. I must ask the House, also, to accept the assurance that my right hon. Friend has given that we would not have decided to proceed with the redevelopment at Holloway except after
  1664
  the most searching examination of all the issues involved.
  The House will wish to know what progress has been made on this project since this is relevant to the issue now before the House in so far as we have reached a stage where it would in any case be too late to turn back without serious loss and disadvantage. Moreover, no significant new factors have arisen or been mentioned in this debate that were not present and taken fully into account in the original decision.
  The Holloway Redevelopment Project, which has been the subject of regular consultation with the planning authorities, has passed from the briefing to the design stages and we now envisage work on the main redevelopment starting on the site at about the end of the year. There has been a considerable investment of technical and professional resources which have been heavily engaged on the major exercise of preparing the ground and organising the resources to launch a project of this scale and complexity. The collateral planning which is involved in the retraining of staff and the redeployment of people and resources has also reached an advanced stage.
  If we were to turn back now there would be no saying when, if ever, a suitable site and opportunity would recur to complete the task to which we have now set our hand. The morale of those concerned in the prison service would be seriously damaged and we should be failing in our duty to those in our care not to press on to a successful conclusion the project upon which we have embarked, and upon which we must rely if we are to fulfil our responsibilities in the future.
  I hope that in due course the people of Islington will come to feel some pride in what is being created at Holloway. In place of an out-of-date, gaunt and deteriorating ensemble of prison buildings there will rise a modern, hospital-type, institution, with its ancillary buildings and staff quarters, which will ensure that our staff and the people in their care are housed and work in a pleasant and satisfying environment. In its conception the new establishment will embody the best in contemporary penological, medical and psychiatric thought. We believe that

  1665
  the new buildings will enhance the town-scope of Islington in an imaginative and desirable way. Socially, they will represent an achievement of international significance, of which we who are responsible for the penal system and, I hope, the people of Islington, will be justifiably proud.
  Mr. R. W. Brown: Islington has been known for a century and more as a place where there were two prisons. People in my constituency are not anxious to perpetuate that situation.
  Mr. Morgan: It is not a question whether we add to the number of prisons in Islington, but whether the increase in our prison population that we are now suffering is such as to allow Islington to have less than two prisons. I have told my hon. Friend that if there is a possibility of the development programme for prisons proceeding at such a pace as to allow Pentonville Prison not to be used as a prison at some time in the future that will be done.
  Though we are unable to meet the request of the local authority for the
  1666
  surrender of this site, I trust we may expect its co-operation in establishing this important new institution. I know, in fact, that it does not question, indeed it shares our belief in the moral values and social merit of the forward-looking policies that have promoted this project. We talk of a caring community; we aspire to higher moral standards and social progress. Here at Holloway we aim in a practical way to develop the advanced therapeutic treatments in an environment that will help us to realise the full potential of our skilled and devoted staff; and to give them the benefit of the best facilities and practice that experience and planning can contrive.
  If, as I firmly believe the way in which a country cares for its needy and delinquent people is a measure of a civilised society, the social attitudes inherent in the redevelopment of Holloway will make a worthy contribution to the achievements by which we shall be judged.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Motorways (Multiple Crashes)
  Motorways (Multiple Crashes)
  Refrigerators (Danger to Children)
  Refrigerators (Danger to Children)
  Remand Home Places for Girls
  Remand Home Places for Girls
  Prisoners (Earnings)
  Prisoners (Earnings)
  Capital Punishment
  Capital Punishment
  Shotgun Certificates
  Shotgun Certificates
  Service Voters
  Service Voters
  Police (Investigation of Complaints)
  Police (Investigation of Complaints)
  Cinema Clubs (Licensing)
  Cinema Clubs (Licensing)
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Borstal Training
  Borstal Training
  Children (Criminal Records)
  Children (Criminal Records)
  Special Constables
  Special Constables
  Crime, Derbyshire
  Crime, Derbyshire
  Parole
  Parole
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Motoring Offence Appeals (Costs)
  Motoring Offence Appeals (Costs)
  Firearms (Illegal Use)
  Firearms (Illegal Use)
  Police, Northamptonshire
  Police, Northamptonshire
  South African Residents (Naturalisation)
  South African Residents (Naturalisation)
  Red Army Choir Visit
  Red Army Choir Visit
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  South African Cricket Tour
  South African Cricket Tour
  Enzyme Detergents
  Enzyme Detergents
  Wrongful Arrest (Personal Case)
  Wrongful Arrest (Personal Case)
  Public Order, London
  Public Order, London
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Police Forces (Organisation)
  Police Forces (Organisation)
  Ticket Touts, Wembley
  Ticket Touts, Wembley
  Courts (Civilian Ushers)
  Courts (Civilian Ushers)
  Motoring Offences, London
  Motoring Offences, London
  Women Taxi-cab Drivers
  Women Taxi-cab Drivers
  Miss Corunna Elektra Hamer (Prison Sentence)
  Miss Corunna Elektra Hamer (Prison Sentence)
  Rugby Match, Swansea (Incidents)
  Rugby Match, Swansea (Incidents)
  Magistrates' Courts
  Magistrates' Courts
  Obscene Publications Act (Films)
  Obscene Publications Act (Films)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Joiners and Construction Workers, Edinburgh
  Joiners and Construction Workers, Edinburgh
  Review, Arbitration and Wage-fixing Bodies
  Review, Arbitration and Wage-fixing Bodies
  Commonwealth Citizens, Huddersfield
  Commonwealth Citizens, Huddersfield
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Gateshead
  Gateshead
  Commission on Industrial Relations (Inquiry)
  Commission on Industrial Relations (Inquiry)
  Textile Industry (Trade Union Recognition)
  Textile Industry (Trade Union Recognition)
  General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation (Union Representation)
  General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation (Union Representation)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Industrial Employees (Pay)
  Industrial Employees (Pay)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Architectural Association's School of Architecture
  Architectural Association's School of Architecture
  Unqualified Teachers
  Unqualified Teachers
TECHNOLOGY
  Portslade and Dover Gas Works
  Portslade and Dover Gas Works
  Messrs. Cleco Limited, Market Harborough
  Messrs. Cleco Limited, Market Harborough
  Radio-active Minerals (Exploration)
  Radio-active Minerals (Exploration)
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Water Supplies, East Midlands and East Anglia
  Water Supplies, East Midlands and East Anglia
  Conurbations
  Conurbations
  Parks and Open Spaces, Greater London
  Parks and Open Spaces, Greater London
  Potash Mining, North Riding
  Potash Mining, North Riding
BOARD OF TRADE
  Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh
  Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh
  Kite Flying
  Kite Flying
  Civil Aviation Act, 1969 (Section 8)
  Civil Aviation Act, 1969 (Section 8)
  Holidays by Air (Tour Prices)
  Holidays by Air (Tour Prices)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Infants (Cot Deaths)
  Infants (Cot Deaths)
  Doctors (Over-Prescribing)
  Doctors (Over-Prescribing)
  Proprietary Medicines
  Proprietary Medicines
  Strikers (National Insurance Contributions)
  Strikers (National Insurance Contributions)
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Retirement Pension Books
  Retirement Pension Books
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland (Civilian Employees)
  Northern Ireland (Civilian Employees)
  N.A.T.O. Nations (Military Research and Development)
  N.A.T.O. Nations (Military Research and Development)
  Rifles
  Rifles
  Tanks
  Tanks
  Northern Ireland (Disturbances)
  Northern Ireland (Disturbances)
  Northern Ireland (Street Rioters)
  Northern Ireland (Street Rioters)
  Northern Ireland (Arms Searches)
  Northern Ireland (Arms Searches)
  Northern Ireland (Arms Shipments)
  Northern Ireland (Arms Shipments)
  Swill Contracts, Aldershot
  Swill Contracts, Aldershot
  Register of Electors
  Register of Electors
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Libya (British Companies)
  Libya (British Companies)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Construction Industry (Unemployment)
  Construction Industry (Unemployment)
  Portland Stone Industry
  Portland Stone Industry
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  BOOK (ADVERTISEMENT)
  BOOK (ADVERTISEMENT)
SCOTLAND
  U.S.S.R. Swimming Team (Visit)
  U.S.S.R. Swimming Team (Visit)
  British Standard Time
  British Standard Time
  Barra (Airfield)
  Barra (Airfield)
  Vehicle Ferry (Stornoway-Ullapool)
  Vehicle Ferry (Stornoway-Ullapool)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  COST OF LIVING
  COST OF LIVING
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY SPEECH)
  BRAZIL
  BRAZIL
  WESTERN EUROPE (POLITICAL CO-OPERATION)
  WESTERN EUROPE (POLITICAL CO-OPERATION)
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  OVERSEAS CULTURAL EVENTS (MINISTERIAL ATTENDANCES)
  OVERSEAS CULTURAL EVENTS (MINISTERIAL ATTENDANCES)
  EUROPEAN DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY
  EUROPEAN DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY
  UNITED NATIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  UNITED NATIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (STATEMENT)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (STATEMENT)
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
  CZAR NICHOLAS II (OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS)
  CZAR NICHOLAS II (OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS)
  NORTH-WEST INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
  NORTH-WEST INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Inshore Fishing Vessels (Construction)
  Inshore Fishing Vessels (Construction)
  Food (Price Increases)
  Food (Price Increases)
  Margarine and Cooking Fats
  Margarine and Cooking Fats
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Population and Family Planning (Multilateral Programmes)
  Population and Family Planning (Multilateral Programmes)
  Sierra Leone (Payments)
  Sierra Leone (Payments)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING
  Whitehall Redevelopment Plan (Inquiry)
  Whitehall Redevelopment Plan (Inquiry)
TRANSPORT
  Road Transport, Wales
  Road Transport, Wales
  Road Safety Act, 1967
  Road Safety Act, 1967
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Personal Taxation (Budget changes)
  Personal Taxation (Budget changes)
  Money Supply and G.N.P.
  Money Supply and G.N.P.
  Development Commission Grants (Wales)
  Development Commission Grants (Wales)
WALES
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Roads Programme
  Roads Programme
  Local Authority Home Loans, Breconshire and Radnorshire
  Local Authority Home Loans, Breconshire and Radnorshire
  Farmer's Lung
  Farmer's Lung

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
The Lord Hatherton—sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

IMMIGRANT PUPILS AND GOVERNMENT STATISTICS
LORD ELTON: 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 why the Department of Education and Science seeks to distinguish schoolchildren whose parents came to this country on or after January 1, 1960, from those whose parents came to this country before that date, and advise that only the former should be classified as immigrant pupils; and whether any other Government Department employs this particular definition for statistical purposes.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, if a child's parents were born outside this country, and have lived here for less than ten years, the child is included, together with children born outside the United Kingdom or Eire, in the Department's statistics of immigrant pupils. The object is to assess the number of children who may have special educational difficulties because they or their families are newcomers to this country. Other Government Departments have different operational needs and do not use this definition.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, which I shall have to study because I could not really follow it all, I should also like to ask if she can make it clearer than I think she did whether this directive was based on the assumption that children of parents who have been here for more than ten years no longer face the problems which confront
710
other immigrant pupils. Secondly, is there any Government Department which classifies, or has classified, as adult immigrants only those who have been here less than eleven years?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's question, may I say that he is correct in assuming that that is the basis of the statistics. But I would tell him that the Department is now looking into the question of this ten-year basis and a review is being undertaken because, as the noble Lord has so rightly pointed out, it has been found that some children have educational needs which go beyond this period, whereas others adjust much more quickly. I cannot give the noble Lord a reply about the other Departments.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether, when the review has taken place, a statement will be made so that we can all understand what is meant by the statistics which we are given from time to time?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords: I will see that a statement is made.

DUCCIO PAINTING AND THE BOARD OF TRADE
3.7 p.m.
LORD GLENDEVON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now make a statement in view of the assurance by the Minister of State, Board of Trade, on July 15, 1969, in this House (col. 249) that the President was anxious to react publicly as soon as possible to the criticism in the Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on the Duccio affairs, and in view of the First Report by the Commons Select Committee on this case dated December 3, 1969.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has noted the Select Committee's acceptance of the finding that complaints of dilatoriness and incompetence on the part of the Board were not justified, and does not think it

711
necessary for him to make a further statement.
LORD GLENDEVON: My Lords, how can the Minister be satisfied with that Answer? He knows as well as I do, does he not, that the Select Committee criticised, just as the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner, had done——
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but I should be most grateful, as I am sure the House would be, if the noble Lord would put what he is saying in the form of a question.
LORD GLENDEVON: My Lords, I think I did. I said, "The Minister is aware, is he not? "There seems to be something interrogatory about that start. Is he not aware that the Select Committee, as did the Parliamentary Commissioner, criticised the wounding misstatement which the then President made against certain much respected men in the art trade, and it was for that reason that the Select Committee suggested that another statement should be made. May I ask this further question? On the merits of the case, even though those whose integrity was attacked consider them selves satisfied and vindicated, both by the Parliamentary Commissioner and by the Select Committee's Report, does that really absolve the Minister, Mr. Crosland, who was concerned, from acting in a civilised way and apologising——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD GLENDEVON: No, my Lords, I am going to ask my question—and apologising for a most wounding misstatement?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord is resentful of the then President of the Board of Trade's attack, as he put it, on certain other persons. But the noble Lord himself criticised both my right honourable friend, Mr. Anthony Crosland, and the Board of Trade, and accused them of bad faith in a speech lasting 18 minutes on the night of July 15 in this House. My right honourable friend was indeed extremely anxious last summer to make a statement. He tried very hard to get Parliamentary time, but
712
because of the pressure of business he failed. Noble Lords may laugh, but that is a fact. In October he left the Board of Trade and went to another Department. If he had remained at the Board of Trade he might well have made a statement, but in the event he did not.
In December, the Select Committee reported and came to the conclusion which I have mentioned; that is, that the Board of Trade were blameless in this matter. In the circumstances, I think it is understandable that my right honourable friend does not consider a further statement necessary. I cannot understand why the noble Lord is pressing this matter. If he is trying to embarrass the Government, I can assure him that he is not succeeding. If he is carrying on some personal vendetta, then I must say that I regard it as most regrettable.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain to the House the difficulties that a Minister has in making a statement?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to accept my word that my right honourable friend tried very hard during July to find time in the House of Commons to make a statement. The noble Lord knows very well that at the end of the Session, when there is a great deal of legislation to clear up, that is sometimes a very difficult thing to do.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who have sat in this House for 25 years have often known three Statements in a day from Ministers at the end of a Session. What happened this time?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, it is quite a different matter when a Minister is seeking time to ward off a scurrilous attack, from when he is trying to deal with important Government business.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think it is time—
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, is the Minister not—
NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, again I am loth to intervene, but if two noble

713
Lords are on their feet one is required to give way. I think there is also a general acceptance that there should be "fair dos" from either side, and since two noble Lords rose at the same time may I suggest that, in fairness, this side might have a chance to intervene?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I was going to ask my noble friend whether it is not true that the Report of the Select Committee considering the Ombudsman's Report exonerated the Board of Trade and, moreover, went on to say that, given the non-policing role of the Board of Trade, no defect was revealed.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, that is entirely correct.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that under the procedure of the House of Commons a Minister is always entitled, with the permission of the House, to make a statement after Question Time? Is he not also aware that even a Back-Bencher is always able to make a personal statement of explanation?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am not very familiar with the procedure of the other place, but my right honourable friend desired to have a short debate on this subject to air the issue, and he was not allowed time.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I also ask my noble friend whether a lot of this trouble does not arise from the fact that certain sections of the art trade did not at the time recognise the Duccio for what it was?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, does it not also seem that the noble Lord opposite has not recognised the difference between a personal statement and a short debate?

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND EXPORT SUBSIDIES
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of, and have considered, the United States Government's
714
proposal for the setting up of Domestic International Sales Corporations the declared purpose of which is to subsidise American exporters by means of special tax advantages: and whether this proposed legislation would (a) discourage U.S.A. investment in overseas manufacturing companies: and (b) constitute a breach of GATT and be prejudicial to our export trade in markets where we compete with U.S. exporters.]
LORD BROWN: My Lords, we have kept ourselves informed of this proposal, which the United States Administration made public on May 12. Briefly, the scheme would offer to United States exporters the opportunity to defer the payment of taxes on income arising from their export sales conducted from within the U.S.A. It is too early to assess what effect this facility might have upon the investment intentions of United States firms. As to the GATT, I have no doubt that the United States Administration is mindful of its obligations under the Agreement, which prohibits subsidies which enable the export price of manufactured goods to be reduced below the domestic price. We shall watch the development of the proposal and take any action which we think is justified.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his Answer, and ask him just one simple question? Does he feel that the announcement of this proposal in certain financial journals in this country has been exaggerated and perhaps over-dramatised, and that it is not as serious as they indicated? Is that the purport of his Answer?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I have seen the Press extract, and there is no question that it has been over-dramatised. The main effect of the provisions, if they are brought into force, is somewhat to increase the liquidity of internal firms set up in the United States to help United States firms export.

BROADCASTING INQUIRY
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half past three my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe will be making a Statement on the Committee of Inquiry into Broadcasting.

715
May I also take the opportunity to say that dinner will be available on Monday, Tuesday and, if necessary, Wednesday of next week?

BARRY CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
HAVERING CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment on the short list of Amendments, which is to page 9, line 26. This is a drafting Amendment, and I do not think it needs any explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 26, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(a)").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the remaining three Amendments on the short list are consequential on Amendments already made in Committee to Clause 15. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to move these Amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 37, at end insert—("(ii) in paragraph (b) for the words" an order "there were substituted the words" a consent". (iii) in paragraph (c) for the word "making" there were substituted the words "consenting to"").
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("an order") and insert ("a consent")
Page 12, line 42, leave out ("making") and insert "consenting to")—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
COATBRIDGE BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons: read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Committee Stages of the Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill and the Indecent Advertisements (Amendment) Bill from Thursday the 21st of May to Wednesday the 20th of May.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REGENT ROYAL AND CARLTON TERRACE GARDENS, EDINBURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.20 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Property of engaged couples.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STOW HILL: I hope that the Committee may feel able to agree that Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill in its present form, but I think that your Lordships would expect that I should call your attention to a slight difficulty about the present text of the Bill. When the Bill was being drafted there was on its way through Parliament the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill which, as your Lordships know, is a major Bill which rearranges property rights as between husband and wife, particularly in the event of the dissolution of a marriage. It was hoped and expected that both that Bill, the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill, and this Bill, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, would reach the Statute Book in 1970.
Clause 2 of the present Bill, which deals with the question of breach of promise of marriage, as your Lordships may recall from the Second Reading, provides for a simple and expeditious method of determining any property questions that may arise as between a young man and a young woman in the event of their marriage not taking place because the engagement has been broken off. What it does is to provide that the expeditious procedure at present laid down in Section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882, which under the existing law applies as between man and wife, shall also be applicable as between a young woman
718
and a young man whose engagement to marry has been broken off. The sort of situation which is in contemplation is the case in which either one or the other or both have bought a house and have expended money or work on it in the hope that it will become the family home. Clause 2 is designed to deal with the position in the event of the engagement to marry being broken off.
The first subsection of Clause 2 lays down certain principles that are to be applied in determining how the property is to be divided between them. With your Lordships' permission, because this is where the difficulty arises, I should like to cite some of the actual wording of Clause 2 as it stands. The relevant words which set out the principles which are to be applied are as follows:
"… any rule of law relating to the rights of husbands and wives in relation to property in which either or both has or have a beneficial interest, including "—
and these are the relevant words—
"any such rule as explained by section 28 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, …"
Your Lordships will therefore see that there is reference in Clause 2 to an Act which is not an Act, for it is at the moment the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill. If next month there is no General Election, then no difficulty will arise; it is to be apprehended that that Bill the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill, will in the ordinary way, reach the Statute Book before the end of this year. If there is a General Election, probably also it will reach the Statute Book before the end of this year. If it does, then the words "section 28 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970" will give rise to no difficulty at all. But the difficulty arises in view of the possibility that that Bill, the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill, may not reach the Statute Book by the end of the year in the event of there being a General Election next month. I hope that that will not happen. I do not think it is likely that it will happen.
The advice that I would respectfully tender to the Committee is to leave the text of Clause 2 in these circumstances as it is: in other words to leave in it the words "as explained by section 28 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and

719
Property Act 1970". But I am bound to point out to your Lordships that it is just conceivable that if that course is followed there may be on the Statute Book, an Act of Parliament; namely, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Section 2 of which refers to the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 when there is no such 1970 Act on the Statute Book. Those words will then bear no meaning. The advice that I would tender is that it does not really matter; it is an imperfection in drafting. If those words did appear in Section 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 when there was no Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 in existence those words in Section 2 of this Act would have no effect in law and therefore would not make any difference: Section 2 would be construed as if those words were not in it.
The question then arose whether, having introduced this measure before your Lordships, I ought to propose some Amendment in order to deal with that defect. I thought long upon it and took advice upon it. The conclusion I came to is that the advice I should offer the Committee is to leave it exactly as it is at the moment; that it does not really matter. I think I am right in forming the view that it is the general wish of both sides of this Committee, as it was the general wish of all sides in the other place, that this Bill should become law. If it is amended now there is a serious risk that if there is an Election next month it will not reach the Statute Book. The worst that could happen would be, therefore, that if there were an Election next month this Bill would reach the Statute Book with that slight defect which would have no result in law. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to approve the course that I respectfully suggest might be followed and agree that this clause stand part of the Bill in its present form.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
3.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the National Health Service Contributions Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, I should like to reply to a question put by two noble Lords on a previous occasion by telling them that it is intended to introduce the Act on July 6.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that being so, could the noble Baroness say why the date is not in the Bill, if it is the firm intention that it shall come into force on that date?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I had hoped that I should satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, by giving him the date, but I see that it has merely precipitated another question. I am afraid that I am unable to tell the noble Lord why the date is not in the Bill, but my statement will be on the Record and it is the intention to introduce the Act on July 6.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

EDUCATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a. An Amendment (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL SERVICES BILL
3.34 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The broad content and the objectives of the Bill will come as no surprise to your Lordships, particularly to those who have indicated their intention to speak in the debate to-day and who have been so closely concerned with the development of the personal social services in recent years, and to those of your Lordships who participated in the full-scale debate we had in January of last year on the Report of the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Frederic Seebohm, on the Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services.
On that occasion my noble friend Lord Stonham outlined the chain of events, through Ingleby, Longford and the Government White Paper on The Child, The Family and The Young Offender which led to the setting up of the Seebohm Committee which was charged with the duty to review the organisation and responsibilities of local authority personal social services in England and Wales and to consider what changes are desirable to secure an effective family service. My noble friend on that occasion placed on record the deep gratitude of Her Majesty's Government to Sir Frederic and his colleagues on the Committee for the breadth of the view and care which they had brought to their comprehensive study of the services concerned and for their Report which has resulted in a major contribution to the development of the services for decades to come. These thanks, noble Lords will recall, were endorsed on both sides of the House, and on several occasions since many noble Lords have been pressing the Government to announce their decision on the implementation of that Report.
Furthermore, as recently as March of this year, in the debate we held on the second Green Paper on the Reorganisation of the National Health Service, I reminded your Lordships of the fundamental review which the Government had initiated across the range of the health and social services and of local government itself, of which the Seebohm Report
722
on the personal social services formed an essential part; and I explained how we now proposed to fit those several parts together. I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to traverse again the same ground, except to remind the House that the proposals in the second Green Paper provide for integrated health service authorities coterminous with the proposed new local government unitary authorities, and that the public health and social services of the local authorities would be divided between the new area health authorities and the social service departments of local authorities according to the predominant professional skills required and by an interlocking membership between the health authorities and the new local authorities.
The Bill now before your Lordships' House deals with the personal social services to be administered by the present local authorities and their successors. It is clearly and closely related to the Health Service in the ways which I have already indicated at some length and is designed to provide a flexible and adaptable system of personal social services, both to alleviate and to prevent social distress. Like the Seebohm Committee's Report it is concerned not merely with social case work, but with the unification and deployment of a wide range of social skills within a coherent administrative framework closely related to other services associated with them. As one who was privileged to be a member of the Seebohm Committee almost throughout the whole of its deliberations, I should perhaps at the outset of the debate declare my own commitment to and personal involvement in the development of 'the health and social services.
I am convinced that with the passing of this Bill 1970 will be remembered as one of the watershed years in the development of these services. The proposals it contains will result in a general system of personal social services which will no longer be fragmented and subordinate minority services, and will establish a single major service alongside our other universal social services such as health, education and social security. Moreover, I hope it will provide a fresh and a stronger emphasis in the development of preventive work, for one of the major objectives of the Seebohm Report was to

723
design an effective family service which was as much concerned with the prevention of social distress as with the provision of social care and support to those families and individuals who are in need of help.
Even, however, after these last five years, first of waiting for Seebohm and then for the Government to announce their decision on Seebohm, there are still some who question the decision to introduce legislation on the personal social services now and in advance of the changes that are being made in the organisation of the intimately related structures of the local government and of the national health services. It has been argued that the Government should defer reorganisation of the personal social services so that it would come into operation at the same time as other related services. It is generally accepted, however, "that the present state of the law as it affects the local organisation of these services is unsatisfactory. Furthermore, for at least ten years different proposals for amendment of the law have been canvassed and the staff of the services concerned has been increasingly affected by uncertainty about their future. This effect has inevitably been aggravated in recent years by the very appointment of the Seebohm Committee itself, a Committee which served and acted as a catalyst for the various arguments in favour or against change.
I hope that I have, albeit briefly, explained the broad purpose of the Bill and why it is right in our view to introduce it at this moment of time. Turning now to its main elements, Clause 2 unifies the local administration of the present social services by requiring each authority to establish a social services committee, and this committee is the heart of the Bill. As many noble Lords will be aware, the present law requires an authority to establish a health committee, a children's committee, and a committee for the discharge of the authority's functions under the National Assistance Act 1948, commonly referred to as the "welfare" committee. In each case the law defines the scope of the committee by requiring that all matters relating to the discharge of functions conferred on the local authority by specified enactments are to stand
724
referred to the committee. The law as it at present stands also requires the council to allow the statutory committee a say on all matters within that committee's sphere, although responsibility for the services rests with the council, which is not bound to adopt the committee's views.
The social services committee which is to be established by Clause 2 of the Bill is of the same kind. Its scope is defined by setting out, in Schedule 1, all the Acts conferring on the council functions which are to be discharged through the social services committee. Like the existing statutory committees which it replaces, the social services committee has a statutory right to a say, while its rights to decide depend on how far the individual council delegates its functions to the committee; that is to say, authorise the committee to exercise the council's functions on the council's behalf. The services which are provided under the enactments specified in Schedule 1, and which are therefore to be administered by the social services committee consist of all services at present administered through the children's committee and those through the welfare committee, and certain of the services at present administered through the health committee.
Having set up a new committee, the other main clause of the Bill, Clause 6, requires the local authority to appoint a new chief officer—a director of social services—for the purpose of the functions assigned by the Bill to the social services committee. The provisions regarding this post are broadly similar to those with which we are already familiar as applying to the statutory post of children's officer.
Clause 15 provides in the usual form for the provisions of the Bill to be brought into force on a date or dates to be appointed by the Secretary of State. It includes, however, a somewhat unusual provision, which noble Lords may well have noticed, which enables the Secretary of State to postpone the application of the Bill to the area of a particular authority. The Government want to bring the Bill into force as soon as possible and as widely as possible, but it has been represented to them that, because of the forthcoming restructuring of local government, particular

725
authorities may make out a case, on efficiency grounds, for avoiding a double set of changes, and for postponing the reorganisation of the social services in accordance with the Bill. The Government intend that there should be few exceptions, if any, to the general policy of early unification of the local social services throughout the country, but the Bill enables an exception to be made if, in the Minister's view, a case for it is established.
Those clauses deal with the organisation proposals within this Bill. The Bill also touches on the very key question for the future development of these services: namely, the organisation of the training of social workers for these and other services throughout the United Kingdom. The Seebohm Committee, noble Lords will recall, recommended the establishment of a new Training Council to centralise the functions of the several existing councils concerned with training for different branches of social work. The Government accept this proposal, and have started the necessary consultations with the various bodies concerned. These consultations are making good progress. Little amendment of the law is required, as the Health Visiting and Social Work (Training) Act 1962 provides all the necessary statutory foundations except in two particulars, which are amended by the Bill. The law as it stands at present makes it obligatory for the two separate councils, which are concerned with health visitors and social workers respectively, to have the same person as chairman. Those two councils, I know, would wish me at this point to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, from whom we shall hear later in the debate, for his distinguished chairmanship. The Bill removes this particular requirement. By including "education" as well as "training" in the titles of the councils it removes the possible impression which has constantly appeared in the conduct of business under the present titles that the councils' scope is less comprehensive than in fact it is.
This Bill has the advantages of brevity and simplicity, and therefore I have sought to introduce it briefly. But it is—and I would stress this point—of enormous significance for the services with which it deals and for the people
726
it is intended to help. For the first time our local authority personal social services will be recognised in law and practice as an entity. Many have said for years that they should be, and some indeed that this reform is now overdue. It will now be possible for the local authorities to plan comprehensively the social services of their area. It will be their responsibility to consider together the provision of social services, social care and social support for children and young persons; for mothers, including unmarried mothers and babies; the elderly, the handicapped and the mentally handicapped: in fact, to provide the comprehensive community based, family orientated service recommended by the Seebohm Committee. This reform should also make the services for families and individuals more effective, and at the same time more readily available and accessible to the citizen. It is in my view the first step in a new conception of the provision of social services, and I hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Serota.)

BROADCASTING INQUIRY
3.48 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAV1ES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will recall, I said in the debate on December 3 last year that I was considering an Inquiry into the long-term future of broadcasting after 1976, when the present mandates of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. expire. There are important technical developments taking place in the field of broadcasting and of communications generally which may have fundamental implications for broadcasting in the later 70s and it is necessary that these, as well as the existing broadcasting arrangements, should be examined before Parliament and the Government have to take decisions about the arrangements that should apply from

727
1976. The Government have, therefore, decided to set up an independent Committee of Inquiry to carry out a wide-ranging review of the future of sound and television broadcasting.
"The terms of reference are:
'To consider the future, after 31st July, 1976, of the broadcasting services in the United Kingdom, of the dissemination by wire of broadcast and other programmes and of television for public showing: to consider the implications for present or any recommended' additional services of new techniques, for example for recording visual programmes for reproduction: and to propose what constitutional, organisational and financial arrangements and what conditions should apply to the conduct of all these services.'
"I have invited Lord Annan to be Chairman of the Committee, and I am glad to inform the House that he has consented. I shall announce the names of the other members of the Committee as soon as possible."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I must thank the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement. May I ask her why, when no decisions are required, and indeed could not be put into effect before 1976, it is necessary to set up this Committee in May, 1970, just before an Election?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the noble Lord may remember that during the last debate on this matter in this House the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said that the five years of the Pilkington Committee were not enough. The Government took very seriously all the discussions which took place about the broadcasting services and decided that plenty of time should be allowed for the Committee to deliberate.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, a good many people thought that five years of Pilkington was too much, I seem to remember. I think it is quite wrong to set up a Committee of this kind and choose its membership before an Election. I must tell the noble Baroness that we in the Conservative Party want to make it quite clear that we reserve our full freedom on this matter to do what we
728
feel is right, regardless of the setting up of this Committee.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, that is noted on this side of the House, and in just the same way the Government are entirely free to set up a Committee, which it is their duty to do.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. I share the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this is not a very appropriate time to choose to set up this Committee, but I look forward to hearing who the other members of the Committee will be. I think the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is very suitable to be the Chairman.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, not all the Members who share the Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, will agree with his remarks about timing because in the last debate in this House an Inquiry of this kind was called for very soon.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, is not the premature setting up of this Committee the clearest indication that we have so far had that the Government, in their hearts, expect to lose the next Election?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the noble Lord must consult his own oracle. We do not consider this a premature inquiry in any sense.

LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL SERVICES BILL
3.53 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, for moving the Second Reading of this Bill. We on this side should like to add our congratulations to the various authors and predecessors of the Bill. Her right honourable friend, Mr. Douglas Houghton, deserves a vote of thanks for his foresight and wisdom in choosing Sir Frederic Seebohm in 1965 to be the Chairman of the Committee. We, too, should like to add our congratulations to

729
Sir Frederic. I think it is a great encouragement to other tycoons that voluntary work for the social services is not the monopoly of young idealists, but is open also to tycoons, who perhaps have the advantage of bringing to these affairs judgment, experience and patience, as well as idealism. We are all extremely grateful to Sir Frederic for bringing those qualities to bear on this problem.
We are also grateful to the other members of the Committee, and not least to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, who was herself a member of the Committee for virtually the whole of its productive life. With her, I would judge that the Bill does not require, and the House to-day will not want, a long debate at this stage; for, as the noble Baroness has said, we had a full-scale debate on this subject 16 months ago, when the Report was first published. I would judge that our most useful contribution can be made at the Committee stage, if we are vouchsafed one. So I will confine myself to one general point which I should like to develop a little, and end with two minor queries for the noble Baroness.
My main point is that since the introduction of this Bill to Parliament we have seen the birth, or maybe it would be better to say the coming of age, of a new profession of British social workers; a new comprehensive unified social work profession now needing to establish itself beside the lawyers, doctors, clergy, soldiers, sailors, airmen and so on. The British Association of Social Workers came into being formally only on April 24—three weeks ago—but it already has 10,000 members, although that number is nothing like so large as the number of doctors, and the Association is not yet so firmly and deeply rooted in our history. However, I would judge that it is destined to have an importance and be esteemed as highly as any of its elder brother professions.
I do not believe that we can come to a right judgment in matters to do with social workers, in matters to do with social work, and in matters to do with relations between social workers and other professions, unless we reckon fully with the reasonable and rightful desire of this profession to obtain and to secure its own place in the sun. Doctors, clergy, lawyers and so on, are surely firmly enough established, with Bishops, in the
730
House of Lords (at any rate, some of them are in the House of Lords), with the traditions of the great teaching hospitals, or the great Inns of Court. None of these is threatened by the advent of the social work profession. Just to mention these examples is enough, surely, to help us to realise the aspirations that must burn in the breasts of the new up-and-coming social workers. Let us take this opportunity to hail this new profession; to give it room to grow, and work upon which to strengthen itself, as well as encouragement to develop its own institutions, formulate its own professional code and stimulate the growth of local branches.
At this stage in the growth of a new profession there are bound to be anomalies, and these give us some food for thought. There are bound to be at the top some people with lower formal qualifications than some at the bottom. There are bound to be people in other professions more competent than social workers themselves at managing social work. There are bound, sometimes, to be voluntary part-time social workers with a greater flair, deeper insight, and wider experience than the full-time, paid professionals. The fact that other professions have passed through this stage, many years earlier, should help them, and us, to deal gently, patiently and generously with their colleagues in the social work field, and to understand why Parliament has to provide some props that clergy, doctors and lawyers no longer need. So, my Lords, we welcome a new British profession inaugurating, with the help of this Bill, a new social work service for England and Wales, with a new sense of purpose. That is the backcloth of this Bill.
I have a great many questions and issues to raise with the noble Baroness, many of which I raised in the debate 16 months ago, but only two of which I will come back to in a moment, and most of which I shall leave to a later stage. The main question that needs to be asked is: does this Bill measure up to the demands of the occasion? Does it make the most of this opportunity? While I welcome the Bill, as do my friends on this side of the House, and while I think we shall not hesitate to give it a Second Reading, and can assure it a Third Reading as it stands, if that is what is needed in order

731
not to lose the Bill altogether, there is a sense in which I believe it fails to measure up to the occasion. It is too much of a mere machinery Bill: it lacks vision and inspiration. There are limits to the positive and constructive role that mere legislation can play. We do not look to legislation merely to provide imagination and drive, but surely it is possible to invest legislation with a few vestiges of inspiration here and there. I regret that in this Bill, wherever there has been a choice between the dry-as-dust approach and the purposeful phrase, the dryness and dustiness seems to have prevailed.
I submit that there has been a failure to include anywhere in the Bill, which includes many other obligations mandatory upon local authorities, some of which are sure to irritate them (and I should be surprised if we do not hear more about this before this debate is over), any comprehensive duty to promote social welfare in broad and general terms over the whole area for which each local authority is responsible. It is in this respect that I believe the Bill chiefly fails to match what the occasion requires. It is in this respect that the explanations so far given for the omission of this clause have confirmed what so many feared for the high aspirations of the Report—the Report which the noble Baroness herself did so much to inspire; aspirations which led the Committee to recommend a social work department with responsibilities (as they put it) extending well beyond the responsibilities of existing local authority departments. The noble Baroness will, I am sure, remember that phrase in the Report.
Those aspirations are now, I submit, deflated and dragged down to the level of a Schedule at the back of the Bill. It is only by reference to pieces out of this Schedule—such as the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, Section 12, Section 13, Section 45, and so on; and then by reference back to Section 2, subsection (2), Section 2, subsection (3)(b), subsection (4) and so on—that we get any view of what the new department is going to have as its main role. It is clear that we need precision of that kind in legislatiton such as this, particularly if it involves, as it does, the imposition of mandatory obligations on all county councils,
732
all county boroughs and all the London boroughs. But is it really asking too much to have set out alongside those sections and subsections, "notwithstandings" and "without prejudices", et cetera, a clause or two describing comprehensively, clearly and accurately the main object of this whole exercise, the whole scope of the Bill, the full role of the new department and the broad duties of those who work in it? This was achieved in the case of the Social Work (Scotland) Bill, and although I admit that there are differences in England and Wales, it is an omission which is unfortunate in this particular case. Because there is very much more involved here than an administrative redesigning, though that of course also is required—and I welcome myself the way in which it has been done and agree with most of the difficult decisions that have been needed to be taken in order to bring it about.
But in addition to and over-arching all that, here is a new profession longing for a new sense of purpose, a new setting in which to work, a new approach to their work and a new flexibility of outlook. I say nothing (because it would be out of Order) about fresh resources. No Act can provide all that, or even very much of it; but it could do better than this rather dry and dusty one. However, I say no more about that now.
I should like to pass to two questions for the noble Baroness which it would be helpful to have elaborated a little. One relates to Clause 6(3), directors of the social work department and their selection. It must be that this Bill is casting its shadow before it, and particularly in the case of those local authorities which are faced with the resignation of the officer who is now charged of one or more of the departments that are going to be affected by this Bill. Therefore, although of course the Bill is not in force, and although the regulations that will be devised under Clause 6(3) cannot yet be published, there must be some criteria by which the Minister responsible for the social services is now guiding local authorities; some criteria by which their choice is being approved. It would be helpful to the House for the noble Baroness to give us some indication of what criteria are being used and are appropriate at this stage of the Bill.

733
The second point I should like to put to the noble Baroness, and upon which to draw her into a slightly fuller explanation, is the matter raised by her honourable friend Mrs. Williams at column 1514 of the debate in another place. This relates to Clause 4(2), sub-committees. Am I right in assuming that there will be a possibility under this Bill, if it is enacted in its present form, of establishing at district level of any local authority below the level of the main authority a sub-committee which may exactly match and closely co-operate in partnership with an equivalent district committee of the area health board covering the same locality, thus making it possible to bring about at the really local level, which is where I believe it matters most, a reconciliation between the health services and the social services which at other and higher levels, for reasons which we deplore but understand, are for the time being being wrenched apart?
My Lords, leaving those two questions for the noble Baroness to deal with if she will when she winds up, I should like to support the Second Reading of this Bill and to assure the noble Baroness that we for our part shall also be willing to give it a Third Reading without further ado if that is necessary to avoid losing the Bill altogether.
4.7 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to follow the example of the noble Lord who has just sat down and not say a great deal on the Second Reading of this Bill. We discussed the Seebohm Report at considerable length some time ago. I think the Bill we wish to see come out of the Report is, on the whole, really quite a good one. The single door (one might say) has its advantages. It is rather curious, looking back on the way circumstances have developed, to notice that in the days of the Poor Law there was a single door which worked as well as it could in those days. A curious thing about the old Poor Law was that the principles were good and well thought out, but what was wrong was the harshness of the way in which it was administered.
There are two points I wish to bring forward on the Bill to which I hope the noble Baroness may be able to give me a reply. The terms of reference of the Seebohm Committee did not include consideration
734
of medical social workers and psychiatric social workers working in hospitals. It is essential for a certain number of social workers to be hospital based, particularly where elderly patients and psychiatric patients are concerned. That gives a direct service to the patient and, at the same time, makes it simpler to hand over to the local authority social service department when the patient is discharged from hospital.
A second, minor point was referred to in the Todd Report, which we debated recently. That is that it was an advantage to have medical social workers in hospital for the teaching of medical students in some of the work they do. So I hope that it will be possible for medical social workers and psychiatric social workers to be seconded from the local authorities to the departments of the hospital, where I am sure their work is essential. I hope also that the secondment will be for quite a long time, not for just a month or six months and then changed over, but certainly for a long time so as to establish a real relationship with the members of the staff of the hospital, to ensure the same kind of stability and continuity of policy. Some of the easier work could be done by social work assistants, leaving the really heavy, serious work to the care of the highly trained medical social worker. So that is one question I should like to put to the noble Baroness.
The second is a simpler one. Patients in hospital are bound to come from more than one area—some come from one local authority and some from another. Supposing they come under the care of the medical social worker or the psychiatric social worker who is seconded to a hospital, there will be no break in the continuity of their care because they are going back to the area of another local authority than the one where the hospital is situated. One saw a good deal of that kind of trouble in regard to local authorities who in the past did not wish to take care of people from other areas. I trust that will not be repeated, and I should like some reassurance on that point.
The other point I would make in criticism of the Bill is that Clause 6 is a little too firm and rigid, where it says that the Secretary of State must approve the qualifications required for the director

735
of social services, and they must be submitted to him. I wonder whether that is really necessary. If we are going to have a statutory committee, surely they could be left to choose their own director rather than to come up to the Department for approval. It is all part of what one could see coming along in the debate that we had the other day on the Green Paper, of putting too much control on the central authority and not leaving enough to the local authorities, whether those that exist now or those that will come in the future. Apart from those comments I have nothing further to say, and I trust that the Bill will go rapidly through your Lordships' House. I am quite sure we should like to see it obtain its Third Reading as soon as possible.
4.14 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF GRASMERE:My Lords, I should like to follow previous speakers in not attempting to make a long and detailed speech on this stage of the Bill, but I wish to make a few remarks about training. I am a little concerned in regard to the question of training, having been—as the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has been good enough to mention—Chairman of the two statutory councils: the Council for Training in Social Work and the Council for the Training of Health Visitors, both Councils being affected by the Bill.
I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in giving a warm welcome to the new profession of social workers, and offering my congratulations to those people who have worked so hard to bring together the various sections of the service in the formation of their national association. For the whole development of the social welfare work of the country which, as previous speakers have said, should, we all hope, take a great leap forward from the enactment of this Bill, it is of great importance to the whole cause of social welfare and also to the new profession, that the training arrangements should stand up to what is wanted from them.
I believe, if I may venture to say so, that the arrangements proposed in the Bill for the training on the social work side are well conceived. Not only well conceived, but in the discussions to which the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, referred, very carefully mulled over in discussions with everybody concerned including
736
the Departments of State. The fundamental principle that is enshrined in the Bill of the setting up of a comprehensive but independent statutory council to be responsible for training over the whole field of this kind of work has also stood up to these discussions' and the necessary give and take between Ministries, between sections of the profession, between everybody concerned, the local authorities and so on. I believe that the conception of a comprehensive statutory council to be responsible for this training is well conceived and is in process of being well worked out in the discussions which are now going on.
I should like to say one word about another Council. I realise that I must not say very much about the Council for the Training of Health Visitors, but it is affected by the Bill. Its title is to be changed, and in future it is to have a separate chairman and not the same chairman as the Council for Training in Social Work. No doubt it was in the mind of Parliament when the original Act was passed that by bringing these two Councils to live together and to have the same chairman they would be drawn closer together over the years. I think that in many ways members of both Councils would agree that they have gained a great deal from being members of a small family and being brought together, as they were by having a common chairman and some common services and housed centrally in a common building. They have learned a good deal about one another and have considerably affected one another's deliberations and decisions.
However it is clear that with the drawing of a line between the work on the social welfare side and the work on the health side, the extreme closeness of the Council for the Training of Health Visitors and the Council for Training in Social Work is not likely to be the best arrangement for the future. Clearly the two Councils will have to work to a considerable extent in agreement, and certainly in friendly relations with one another, but I think both Councils are agreed that in the circumstances the right thing is to have separate chairmen and to carry out their co-operation and make their friendly contacts with separate chairmen rather than under the same

737
chairman. So all that, too, I believe to be well-conceived.
I should just like to add this—I think it should be said, and your Lordships will allow that it is a reasonable thing to say—as the Council for the Training of Health Visitors is affected by the Bill. As I think your Lordships know, there is a great deal of disappointment that it has not been possible to review and reconstitute (or whatever is the right word) the Council concerned with the health visitors on the health side at the same time, or at about the same time, as the Council for social work. Naturally, there are all sorts of fears that, with the social work Council having a secure future, the green light, rousing encouragement, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and as we had already heard from the Seebohm Committee itself, and with little able to be settled for the health visitor Council, what will be for some time the smaller Council may be left out in the cold.
There is also a very strong development among the people concerned who feel that a council looking after the whole field of training for community nursing—not just health visitors but the whole field of community nursing—is as strongly needed as the reconstituted council on the social work side. It. is clear that the Briggs Committee has to do its work, and all that makes it very difficult to know how much can be done at any given moment. I understand that the Government are giving quite a lot of thought to what can be done in the interim on this side. I hope that they are giving some urgency to this matter and that in due course they will see that anything that can be done to make the health visitor Council feel that it is by no means forgotten, that its interests are in everybody's mind, will be done; that certainly they will be given a chairman who can look in the eye the chairman of the great new Seebohm Social Work Council, and that other things which can be done in the meantime to enable the interim years to go well will be done.
May I conclude by repeating that I think the arrangements for training, so far as I can see—and nearly all my friends connected with the work of training in this field I think agree—are conceived along sound lines and have been well worked out. We all very much welcome them.
4.23 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Grasmere, I shall not detain your Lordships for many moments this afternoon. Before I come to what may prove to be more critical matter, I shoud like, if I may, to associate myself with the welcome that was extended by my noble friend Lord Sandford and by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to the new profession of social worker. In the ten years of my life that I spent as Chairman of the old National Assistance Board I learned the value of training for social workers, I believe that the standard of training in the National Assistance Board was probably higher, than it was in any other department. I believe that the fact that the National Assistance Board succeeded in securing the confidence of the public to a much greater extent than any of its predecessors had done was attributable to the fact that the Board's staff were trained more thoroughly and more adequately than the staffs in many Departments.
This Bill could, I think, have been more conveniently considered with the second Green Paper on the National Health Service; indeed, the noble Baroness, in the course of her speech, frequently had to refer to the Green Paper. It has always been the view of local authorities that the National Health Service could have been best administered as a local authority service in a new and reformed structure of local government. The Government have apparently rejected that view, and no doubt they will in due course set up the new public health authorities in all parts of the country. The local authorities have not changed their view: but if the service is not to be a local authority service they accept the enumeration of functions in Schedule 1 to the Bill as a fair definition of the boundary line between the National Health Service and the local authority social services. The authorities enumerated in the first section will no doubt require some amendment, and no doubt the whole Schedule will require some amendment, but on the whole I think it provides a fair and efficient boundary line between the two services.
The Bill appears at first sight to be a harmless—perhaps I ought not to say harmless, but a very acceptable measure. The greater part of it gives effect to the

739
recommendations of the Seebohm Committee, which I think were received without criticism by both sides of your Lordships' House. It does, however, contain some material of a very controversial character. The local authorities object very strongly to the attempt the Bill seems to make to exercise control, albeit perhaps a remote control, over the manner in which their services are to be organised and administered by the local authorities. All through the Bill one finds again and again an attempt to vest effective control of the service and its administration in the Central Government Department. If one takes first Clause 2 of the Bill, it provides:
"Every local authority shall establish a social services committee …"
and so on. No doubt a social services committee will be the most convenient form of administration in the majority of authorities. But it does not necessarily follow that a committee of that sort will be the best form of administration in all the authorities. It would have been better if a wider discretion had been given to the local authorities to establish a committee suitable to their requirements and the needs of their neighbourhood.
Then under subsection (2) of Clause 2 we see:
"The Secretary of State may by Order designate functions …"
which the social services committee are to undertake. In subsection (4) we read:
"The Secretary of State may direct that such of the functions mentioned in subsection (3)(b) as are specified in the direction, being functions which appear to him to be mainly medical in nature, shall stand referred to the health committee of a local authority."
And again in Clause 3 subsection (4):
"Nothing in section 2 of this Act or this section prevents a local authority from referring to a committee other than their social services committee a matter which by virtue of either of those sections stands referred to the social services committee and which in the authority's opinion ought to be referred to the other committee on the ground that it relates to a general service of the authority; but before referring any such matter the authority shall receive and consider a report of the social services committee …"
I should have thought that there again it might have been properly left to the local authority to decide which of their committees was to offer advice in
740
response to a request from the council. But there it is; they have to have a report from the social services committee.
Clause 6 deals with the staff, in particular with the chief officer. It opens:
"A local authority shall appoint an officer, to be known as the director of social services …"
In some authorities, however, an officer known as the director of social services may not be the best form of administration. The Bill ought to leave to responsible local authorities the determination of the functions to be performed. Then, in subsection (4), Clause 6 goes on to say:
"Until the first coming into force of regulations made under subsection (3) above, a local authority shall not appoint, nor concur in the appointment of, a director of social services except after consultation with the Secretary of State …"
The clause goes on to provide that the Secretary of State may make regulations about the qualifications of the chief officer.
That administrative structure seems to owe its origin to the Children Act 1948. Nearly all of these provisions to which I have referred find their parallel in that. The Children Act has not worked particularly well. Indeed, many people consider that it would have worked much better had the restrictions under which it functions been less severe. The local authorities have been encouraged to expect that the attitude of the central Government towards them had changed, and that the approach in future would be more moderate than it has been in the past. That was the view of the Royal Commission. It was the view that was quite strongly expressed by Lord Redcliffe-Maud's Committee on the Management of Local Authorities, and it seems to have been the view of the Government themselves.
The White Paper, which presents a contrast to what is provided in this Bill, says in paragraph 60:
"As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech to the Association of Municipal Corporations at Scarborough on September 17, 1969, the Government believe unequivocally in greater freedom for local authorities within the framework of national policies laid down by Parliament. The reorganisation of local government creates an opportunity, which the Government intend to seize, for achieving this aim."

741
Then, in paragraph 67, the White Paper says:
"The Commission recommended, as did the Committee on the Management of Local Government in still more specific terms, a reduction in statutory control over the internal administration of local authorities. The Government accept this recommendation. They agree that in general the statutory requirements that authorities should maintain separate committees for specific purposes are now obsolete—though this does not, of course, imply that the importance of particular committees has diminished; it means only that the services in question are now firmly established. The same applies, in general, to provisions requiring the approval of Ministers to the choice of officers for certain posts. The Government will, however, have regard to the exceptional considerations which apply to the police, and to the Seebohm Committee's recommendations for the personal social services, which will be the subject of early legislation."
My Lords, it is really impossible to reconcile those two paragraphs with what is contained in this Bill. Here, in the Bill, the Government have done the exact opposite. Almost every one of the things which were condemned by the Redcliffe-Maud Committee, and in the Government's own White Paper, are to be found in this Bill. It is not surprising that the local authorities feel that they have been thoroughly misled over this matter. In the very first Bill which comes to Parliament in which these matters are involved we find exactly the provisions against which the Redcliffe-Maud Committee recommended and which the Government purport to have rejected. I hope that the noble Baroness when she comes to reply, will give us some explanation of how these inconsistencies appear to have come into being.
I am told that in another place it was said that the final paragraph, which refers to "exceptional considerations" in the police service and in the Seebohm Committee's recommendations, justifies the departure from the declared policy of the Government which this Bill represents. But there is nothing exceptional about the considerations which apply to these social service committees. The committees are already in existence. Many of them have been so for many years. The services, too, are already in existence. All this Bill will do is to regroup them at the top and to rearrange the administration from the centre. There is nothing else "exceptional". I feel strongly that in this matter the Government ought to have followed their own
742
White Paper, and that the Bill should have contained provisions which would give local authorities a proper and responsible position in the administration of these vital services.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, I might intervene just for a moment, before the noble Lord sits down, on the point that he has been making. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, will forgive me. I, too, find this mandatory clause objectionable, and I can well understand why the local authorities do. I dealt with the point myself when we had our full-scale debate on the Report. But I must say that my fears were a good deal set at rest by what the honourable lady, Mrs. Shirley Williams, said in another place on the Committee stage, at column 13, when she made it quite clear that the Government regard this mandatory provision in particular as being temporary, to cover the initial period of the setting up of these committees. I think it would help us very much, and help the further passage of this Bill, if the noble Baroness could say anything further to elaborate or develop what her friend in another place said at that point.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would at the same time also tell us whether the intention is to repeal this Act when these services have established themselves.
4.38 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, this is a Bill which I think we can support fully in its Second Reading stage and hope that it will go through its other stages with considerable ease and celerity. It allows for work to begin on the main recommendations of the Seebohm Report which, on the whole, was well received when it was debated in this House in January, 1969. The schedule of services which will in future be referred to the social services committees seems to be a reasonable one. There is, of course, a lack of detail, and one might go so far as to support the noble Lord, Lord Sand-ford, in saying that there is some lack of inspiration in the wording of this rather brief and dry Bill. But I suppose the real inspiration, the thing which will make this scheme succeed or not succeed, lies in the future appointments of directors of social services.

743
It was said by several of us in the debate on the Seebohm Report to which I have just referred that collaboration between the medical profession and the social services is of paramount importance, and that implies a thorough involvement of the general practitioner in the whole structure of these services. That does not seem to be referred to in the Bill, and I take it that this is not the appropriate place for it to be mentioned; it will come under the duties of the new directors of social services. These directors will be absolutely key appointments, and I suppose none of us quite knows yet what type of a person a director of social services is going to be. I imagine that he is rather an experimental kind of person, and that in some districts he may have had one kind of background and in other districts quite a different kind. It may be many years before we come to any firm conclusions on what kind of a person he should be. Therefore, I do not share the slight doubts raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the almost condemnation voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, on the proposed reliance of the local authority on the central Department for making these appointments.
What the Bill actually says is:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing the qualifications requisite for a person's appointment as a local authority's director of social services."
That seems to me wise. It would, of course, be nice to know at this stage a little more about what kind of qualifications the Secretary of State has in mind. Then, reading straight on from that, the Bill says:
"Until the first coming into force of regulations made under subsection (3) above, a local authority shall not appoint … a director of social services except after consultation with the Secretary of State "
et cetera. So this is clearly a temporary measure and, I should have thought, an extraordinarily wise one. Local authorities vary greatly in quality. The best of them, with a wide choice of expert people whom they might put in a post of this kind, have, I am sure, nothing to fear from the central authority, who, I am certain, would immediately be likely to accept any recommendations they put forward for a suitable director.
744
However, I would remind the House of what I thought were the very wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, in her opening of the debate on the Seebohm Report. With your Lordships' permission, I will read some of her words, and I think that will complete everything I have to say. She said:
"the first chief officer responsible for the suggested new social welfare department must be of comparable calibre to the other chief officers already in the field—in finance, housing, the medical officer of health, the chief engineer, and so on. Some doubt has been expressed as to whether sufficient men and women up to the job will be forthcoming, but I am not pessimistic about this. To me. the one thing that must be avoided at all costs is the unsuitable appointment of an existing local government officer simply because he may be in danger of becoming redundant if he is not given the new post. This has been known to happen in the past, with disastrous results locally. Much better to retire such a person with proper compensation than imperil the future of the new department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29/1/1969; col. 1174.]
I personally feel that these appointments are of such importance that, as a temporary measure, the regulations in Clause 6 are in fact wise ones. I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
4.46 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I rise to make a few brief comments on this Bill, which largely implements the recommendations of the Seebohm Committee as they relate to machinery. That it is an extremely important Bill nobody will deny, least of all the Association of Municipal Corporations, some of whose reactions are rather apprehensive. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, when she replies, will say something about those apprehensions.
The Government have decided to unify the health services outside reformed local government and by taking this decision have made it necessary to define, for statutory purposes, a boundary between the personal social services and the National Health Service. The Association which I mentioned just now naturally regret this decision but, given that a sharp boundary must be drawn, they would not dissent from the line drawn in Schedule 1 to the Bill. Apart, however, from the division of functions the Bill is drawn in terms to which the Association's first reaction is complete opposition. It has evidently been drawn to correspond closely, as they say, with

745
the provisions of Part VI of the Children Act 1948, and is in nearly every respect as restrictive as that Act which was passed 22 years ago.
The White Paper on Local Government Reform was quoted just now by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and I do not want to over-emphasise the point which he has already so ably made. But I feel that it requires a very definite reply from the Government. After all, I think it is worth repeating what the White Paper says the Prime Minister made clear in his speech in September, 1969, that:
"the Government believe unequivocally in greater freedom for local authorities within the framework of national policies laid down by Parliament. The reorganisation of local government creates an opportunity which the Government intends to seize for achieving this aim."
And the White Paper continued:
"The Commission recommended, as did the Committee on the Management of Local Government in still more specific terms, a reduction in statutory control over the internal administration of local authorities. The Government accept this recommendation; they agree that in general the statutory requirements that authorities should maintain separate committees for specific purposes are now obsolete."
I do not want to over-emphasise this point, but I believe that, unless something is said to explain the apparent contradiction to which the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has drawn attention, there will remain a feeling (which I am sure is false) that there is almost an element of hypocrisy in the contrast between the lip service which the White Paper pays to the concept of greater freedom for local authorities and the actual terms of this Bill now before us.
The Bill is one of rigid control and Clauses 2, 3, 6 and 7 are, in the eyes of local authorities, highly objectionable. In their view, the general effect of those clauses is wholly out-dated and completely out of line with the Government's stated wish to increase the powers of local authorities. The Association's view in relation to social services, as in relation to many other matters, is that legislation should require local authorities to do things, and that their committee and departmental structure should be left to local authorities. This is a view which has been commended, particularly in relation to the committee structure, both in the Royal Commission's Report and in the Government's White Paper, so it is
746
difficult to see why social service functions in particular are so different that we must revert to the legislative pattern employed 22 years ago.
Assuming, however, that the Government wish to see social services departments as such emerging in different authorities, would it not have been sufficient to pass an adoptive Act enabling local authorities to set up such departments if they wish, and then, after a period of years, to reach a conclusion as to whether those authorities which had not adopted the Act administered their services efficiently? Even if something more positive is called for—and I think the Association would to-day dispute that it is—is it necessary for Parliament to lay down that there shall be a social services committee and a director of social services, whose qualifications the Secretary of State shall prescribe, and that the committee and departments shall do only those things which the Act or the Secretary of State state they may do, and that they shall work under the general guidance of the Secretary of State? That is not giving local authorities more power.
The issue here is wider than simply the organisation of social services, and that is why I mention it on Second Reading. There is the question once more of a complete moving of control; what some of us regard as excessive centralisation. The view can be taken that local authorities are simply a convenient device for administering certain services, that they must do so in a uniform way from place to place under the guidance of central Government, and that they must conform closely to central Government policies. There are no doubt many people among us who for tenable reasons take that view, and this Bill will certainly not offend them. But the alternative view, which is the view I would take, is that independent local government is an essential part of a healthy democracy, and that unless there is substantial scope for local initiative local government will inevitably become torpid.
Healthy local government implies giving to local authorities far greater discretion in a number of ways, an important one being freedom to make their own internal arrangements. This Bill is a very rigid measure. There are a number of possible compromise positions.

747
Surely it is not necessary to provide for a mandatory committee and a mandatory officer, to prescribe his qualifications and to circumscribe the functions of both of them. There are a number of other points which might be raised, but I do not wish to delay the House over them. In any case, I think they would be better raised in Committee and no doubt they will be.
In conclusion, I have one point on the question of timing. Compulsion, if there must be compulsion, should surely not precede local government reform, nor, more importantly, should it precede the legislation necessary to implement whatever changes take place in the Health Service. There are three reasons for this. First, the choice of officers may be difficult for some authorities at a time of great uncertainty. Secondly, the loss of mental health social work may be damaging to the morale of some health departments, again at a time of great uncertainty as a result of the second Green Paper. And, thirdly, the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 is being brought into force by stages, and a major stage will be reached on October 1. If there is to be implementation of Seebohm and reorganisation of child care departments while coping with this measure, it is not hard to foresee a good many difficulties arising, although the problem may be greater for some authorities than for others. From the point of view of bringing into force a major reorganisation, a singularly bad time has been chosen.
It is very unfortunate that, as foreshadowed in Clause 10, before reorganisation of local government those district councils which have claimed delegation of welfare functions must now surrender them. It is to be hoped that in each case due regard will be paid to local circumstances before decisions are taken. The Seebohm Committee was quite emphatic that there should be only one central Government Department, responsible both for the relationship between central Government and social service departments and for providing overall national planning of social services. Since the Seebohm solution has been found to be right for local government, it is also right for central Government. In the opinion of local authorities, the Bill should contain a clause on the lines of
748
the Scottish measure, empowering local authorities to promote social welfare generally. I have no doubt that the points I have mentioned will receive more attention in Committee, and that the noble Baroness will also reply to them when she speaks.
4.58 p.m
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I first of all thank all noble Lords who have spoken for the welcome they have given to this Bill, although certain noble Lords, particularly Lord Ilford and Lord Milverton, have expressed reservations about which I shall say a word in a moment. As I see this Second Reading debate, two major issues of principle have been raised: the first, by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on the general question of the scope and nature of the Bill. with his specific point about the need for a general power; and the second by the noble Lords, Lord Ilford and Lord Milverton, in relation to the mandatory nature of this Bill and the reactions of local authorities to it. Several noble Lords have raised other points and I shall try to deal with them in my reply. But if by any chance, as sometimes happens, I overlook them in the course of my remarks, I assure all noble Lords concerned that I will write to them.
May I first deal with what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred to as the dry-as-dust nature of the Bill? I must confess that I find all Bills rather dry, and I have yet to see one that has inspired me with any particular feeling of excitement. It is the language of lawyers that writes down some of our most exciting thoughts in this rather dreary way. But, to be quite fair, I must also admit that when I first held the print of this particular Bill in my hand I, too, felt a slight sense of disappointment, until I realised that of course this is the way the law has to be. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that the presentation of this Bill as an organisational Bill in no way derogates from the immense significance that it can have in terms of the development of our social services.
It is primarily, as the noble Lord so rightly said, a machinery Bill, and it is a machinery Bill because, as I have tried to explain, at this stage in the development of the services, and having regard to the proposed developments to come,

749
it was the view of the Government that we should not attempt to recast now the functions of local authorities. I would also remind the noble Lord that there have been changes in the powers of local authorities since the Seebohm Committee reported. Since July, 1968, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is as aware as I am, two major pieces of social legislation have been passed which have considerably enlarged the responsibilities and duties of local authorities in relation to the care and control of children and young people and, under Section 45 of the Public Health Act, the promotion of the welfare, in the broadest sense, of the elderly. Our whole anxiety at this stage in our history is to get the organisational change which in our view will create the machinery for local authorities to go forward in the development of their comprehensive personal social services.
It has been extremely gratifying to have the support of noble Lords in all parts of the House for the demarcation lines between health and social services which were finally drawn. This was an extraordinarily complex problem and a very difficult decision to make, although I must confess that there are some who seem to be under the impression that dividing lines do not exist already. The whole of the National Health Service is not by any means in local government: the hospital service is directly outside it. All we are really doing in this Bill is changing the lines of division. It is the local authority health departments that will be divided, not the Health Service itself. The object of the change is to integrate the Health Service into one single service, as opposed to its present tripartite form, on the one hand, and to correlate it to the unified social services in local government, on the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, also asked me two particular points. The first was in relation to the selection of directors, and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, very wisely, pointed out the difficulties here: the problems, the varying backgrounds from which staff would come, and the fact that in the initial stages, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke, reminded us when she introduced the Seebohm Report debate a year or so ago, one would be experimenting, in the sense that initially we should be appointing to these new posts of directors people with
750
varying backgrounds, possibly from a range of professions. This is because, as the Seebohm Committee themselves knew, no single profession presently combines all the professional experience and knowledge which these new posts will require.
The Ministers' approach to these questions, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be along the lines recommended in paragraph 620 of the Seebohm Report itself. This said:
"The objective should be to secure that … heads of … departments are people professionally qualified in social work (including those qualified in residential care) who have received training in management … or administrators with qualifications in social work …"
Already, even before the Bill has become a Statute, some 50 individual local authorities have consulted the Government Departments, which for this purpose have set up a joint staff who will be available and willing to assist and advise local authorities if they are considering appointing directors-designate in advance of the passing of the Bill.
Lord Sandford's second question related to the possible inter-relationship between the district sub-committees (if I may so call them) of the proposed new area health authorities and the district committees in the revised local government structure, and whether this was a possible means of uniting at neighbourhood and district level the health social services in terms of their community operations. I listened to the noble Lord with very great interest on this point. Since the publication of the Green Paper we have been giving particular thought to the status, functions and membership of these district committees: who should serve on them; how they should relate to local government; what should be the balance of professional membership, lay membership and voluntary organisation membership. All these are issues that we are now considering, and I will certainly bear in mind the noble Lord's point, remembering at the same time, of course, the White Paper on Local Government in relation to district councils.
My Lords, may I now turn to the other question of principle which is worrying both the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton; namely, the mandatory nature of the proposals in this legislation? I

751
had hoped that this was not going to be a controversial debate, but I cannot allow the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, made about the Children's Service to pass without some comment from my own experience. I am afraid that I would not agree with him that the Children Act was a bad piece of legislation, which has worked against the best interests of the Children's Service.
In my view, the Children Act 1948 was a necessary piece of legislation following the Report of the Curtis Committee; and it has served to illustrate how one can bring forward a service in terms of development if one organises it in this way and if one defines specific responsibilities as the Children Act defined and concentrated the responsibilities of children's committees and children's officers. We have seen immense development in the field of the children's services, and I hope that those developments can be carried through just as effectively and even more successfully into the new, combined social service departments
Nor can I agree that all local authorities take the same rather gloomy view of this Bill as that expressed by the noble Lords who are opposed to its mandatory nature. In fact, some local authorities have welcomed it, and I think the measure of their interest is the fact that some 50 have been in touch with the interdepartmental group for advice on the ways in which they should approach the task of appointing the new director of social services. I fully appreciate, as do the Government, the fact that their decision to make the new social service departments statutory departments in local government, and to create a statutory post of director of social services, runs counter to the general trend of what I call the "mini-Maud". This was a matter which the Government considered carefully and seriously. Indeed. the White Paper on the "major-Maud"—that is, the Royal Commission on the Reorganisation of Local Government—set out, I hope very clearly, why it had been decided to make an exception in the case of the implementation of the recommendation of the Seebohm Report.
I am sure that the Seebohm Committee were right to recommend that, at least in the beginning of these new services, they must be mandatory on all local authorities.
752
We know that if this matter were left to the choice of individual local authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, suggested, some would appoint a director of social services and would organise their departments in this way and some would not.
The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, asked if I could put a time limit on the mandatory situation that the Government propose, and if I could say whether the law would be repealed after a certain period. I cannot, of course, give either a time limit or an assurance of an appeal; but I hope that any Government, of whatever colour, would naturally watch carefully and closely the development of these new services and decide in the light of that experience and development whether or not it is neecssary in the circumstances of the future to continue the proposed mandatory provision. I hope that both noble Lords who expressed their concern on this particular matter will accept what I have said. As they probably know, local authorities are by no means united about this. I understand their concern about the principle, but I can assure noble Lords that this matter was very carefully weighed by the Government before coming to this decision which we believe in the circumstances to be the right one.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, reminded us that in some respects the provision of a "single door" on which to knock took us back to one of the basic principles of the Poor Law. I hope that that is not so; because, although the concept of a service for the family from the cradle to the grave is one that we all very much support—and it is certainly one of the principles of this Bill—it also raises difficulties of the kind that he mentioned and on which he sought my assurance: namely, if a patient comes from one area health authority for, say, hospital treatment in another, would this mean that there would be no continuity in terms of social work care and support? Are we, in fact, going back to the position which existed fand which in my view was one of the worst features of the Poor Law) where patients were pushed over the borough boundaries.
No, my Lords. I am convinced that this is not the way in which division will work. We have a long tradition in local government of continuity of social care.

753
I see the possibility whereby social workers in our hospitals will in fact become members of the combined social services departments; and I agree wholeheartedly with Lord Amulree when he asks that if this were to happen they should be seconded there for a reasonable period, both to gain knowledge of the hospital and also to try to assist in the education of other members of the health professions working in the hospitals. I can give him my view that if this reorganisation were to take place in that way, it would be necessary for the social service Departments to maintain continuity between their officers and those of the area health authority.
My Lords, I hope that, with those assurances, the House will now agree to give this Bill a Second Reading. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, particularly for the assurance he gave at the outset when he said that he was willing for this particular Bill to go forward to Third Reading and to receive the Royal Assent as quickly as possible. I mentioned at the outset the anxiety that some of the workers in these services have felt for a considerable period of years. I am sure that to agree to give this Bill a Second Reading today, in the knowledge that it will go through all its stages with the greatest possible speed, will be the greatest reassurance we could give to the workers in the service who have waited so long.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOUTH-EAST ASIA
5.16 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD rose to move, That this House takes note of the situation in South-East Asia. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion Standing in my name on the Order Paper. Certain Members of your Lordships' House were anxious to have a debate on recent events in Cambodia and Vietnam. Although there was a debate in another place last week, the Government thought it right that a similar opportunity should be provided for this House to debate this subject, and that it should take place on a formal Government Motion. The Motion asks the
754
House to take note of the situation in South-East Asia; but my opening remarks will be confined to the continuing tragic war in Vietnam and the consequences arising in Laos and Cambodia.
I know that recent events in Cambodia have aroused very strong feeling among many noble Lords. I recognise the depth of this feeling and I respect its sincerity. Her Majesty's Government deeply regret any intensification of the fighting and any increase in the suffering of which there has already been all too much in this long and cruel war in Indo-China. But I think it is essential to see recent events in Cambodia in perspective against the background of the wider picture. It is not possible to view them, or pass judgment upon them, in isolation. They have to be seen against the background of developments in Cambodia itself and in Indo-China and South-East Asia as a whole.
I believe that it is for the countries of South-East Asia to decide on their own future without outside interference and to develop their economic resources for the benefit of their own people and of the area as a whole. There are increasing signs that the spirit of collective development and of working together to tackle their own problems is developing throughout the area. The initiative by a number of Asian countries to tackle the problem of Cambodia is an important instance of this. In the economic field the countries of South-East Asia are likely to continue for some time to look for help from more developed countries outside the region. We recognise their right to expect such help and we, for our part, are doing our best to supply it within our existing resources.
The main obstacle to peaceful progress in the area lies in the situation in Indo-China. Until a settlement is achieved there, it will be difficult for any real advances to be made. Equally, the form of the eventual settlement can be expected to have far-reaching effects on the pattern of events throughout the area. If the outcome were to be a Communist takeover in South Vietnam against the wishes of the majority of the people, then the implications would be clearly understood by other Asian countries. But if a fair settlement can be reached, as I

755
believe it can, then the way to peaceful regional development will be open.
In Cambodia, the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong have long made use of Cambodian territory as an area of sanctuary to which they could withdraw from the fighting in Vietnam, as a base area where they could keep their stores, conduct training and launch offensives across the Vietnam border, and as a supply route through which the bulk of their supplies were brought for the southern half of South Vietnam, the area around Saigon and the heavily populated Delta area. I think we need to be clear about this. It would be quite wrong to think that in the past Cambodia has been allowed to be neutral in the true sense of the word. The Cambodian army was not until recently engaged in hostilities and there was no fighting on Cambodian soil. However, there was this North Vietnamese and Viet Cong activity. The former Head of Slate of Cambodia, Prince Sihanouk, himself complained about the illegal Communist presence in his country. On leaving Paris on March 13 for Moscow and Peking, he said:
"I intend to ask Moscow and Peking to advise their friends at Hanoi and in the Viet Cong to put a brake on their interference in Cambodian domestic affairs, …"
While in Moscow, he sent a message to his mother, the Queen, which was subsequently published. The message said:
"I should like to affirm to my fellow countrymen that I will never tolerate either the infiltration of the Viet Cong and Viet Minh or their interference in our affairs, because ours is a sovereign country. Yesterday, I informed the friendly Soviet leaders of this matter."
The fact that until now there was no fighting in Cambodia should not lead us to overlook the threat this illegal presence represented to South Vietnam. It was in this situation that South Vietnamese and American action across the border into Cambodia against these North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces took place. I would say again that I do not intend to pass judgment on this action because I do not believe it would serve a useful purpose to try to do so. I think, as I have always thought, that in Indo-China it is no use looking back. The important thing is to look forward and to try, and keep on trying, to work
756
for a way to bring the war to an end. This is the only way that all the suffering and misery can be stopped.
My Lords, the root cause of the troubles in Indo-China, whether in Vietnam or in Cambodia or in Laos, lies in the Vietnam war. I have described how the situation in Cambodia is inextricably linked with what is going on across the border in South Vietnam. In Laos it has been impossible to apply properly the 1962 Geneva Agreement because, in violation of the terms of that Agreement, the North Vietnamese have maintained a large number of troops in the country. They do this partly to support the Pathet Lao, the Communist movement, but perhaps their main interest in Laos is in keeping open the Ho Chi Minh trails, the complex of jungle trails running through South-Eastern Laos through which men and supplies pass from North Vietnam for the war in the South, particularly in the Northern half of South Vietnam. So long as the war in the South continues, the North Vietnamese will want to keep this route open, and I do not see how any real, basic settlement, involving the implementation and full application of the 1962 Geneva Agreements, can be expected, because this would mean the withdrawal of all foreign troops—that is, North Vietnamese troops. And so long as they believe that they still need the Ho Chi Minh trails, I am afraid that the North Vietnamese are not likely to accept this.
We had hoped that it might have been possible to reach a degree of limited agreement which would at least mean an improvement in the situation. Her Majesty's Government welcome the recent contacts between the Prime Minister of Laos, Prince Souvanna Phouma, who deserves all praise and support for his long and courageous efforts to preserve the neutrality and integrity of his country, and the leader of the Pathet Lao. Her Majesty's Government hope these contacts will develop into talks and that these may lead to a measure of agreement which will make possible a limited improvement in the situation in Laos until, as we must all hope, the eventual end of the Vietnam war makes possible a really comprehensive solution which will enable Laos to live undisturbed as a unified country on

757
the lines which were agreed by all concerned eight years ago in Geneva.
In Cambodia too Her Majesty's Government had hoped that progress, even limited progress, could be made in direct talks between the Government in Phnom Penh and the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. I regret the fact that the North Vietnamese broke off these talks and declined the Cambodian Government's invitation to renew them. As a Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference we have conveyed to the other Co-Chairman, the Soviet Union, the urgent request by the Cambodian Government for the early return of the International Control Commission. We believe that the Commission has still a role to play and we therefore give support for its return. Unfortunately the Soviet attitude is not the same as ours.
In Vietnam itself the war goes on. We can perhaps find some comfort in the fact that although there are from time to time upsurges in the fighting, the general level of hostilities is well below what it was during, for example, the heavy fighting in the offensives of 1968. We must be thankful for even limited improvements in the situation: but there can be no end to the killing until there is a proper comprehensive settlement including a cease-fire. While the war goes on, there is always a danger, at any time, of an intensification of fighting, either in Vietnam itself or across the border in Laos or in Cambodia.
My Lords, I venture to suggest that the situation in Cambodia would not be what it is to-day if both sides of the Vietnam war had displayed an equal will to end it. We have over the past years, publicly in this House and in another place, and privately, in particular through those whom we hoped had influence in Hanoi, urged upon North Vietnam the wisdom and humanity of negotiating seriously for an end to the war. Equally often we warned them that by not negotiating they would both continue the dreadful toll of human lives and also risk an intensification and extension of the war. We have repeatedly exhorted them to match the many steps, concessions and attempts made by the United States to initiate serious negotiations, both in Paris and elsewhere. Her Majesty's Government had hoped very
758
much that when the four parties principally involved agreed to sit down together at the negotiating table in Paris, an agreed settlement might at last be in sight. Il is very difficult for outside parties to help towards a settlement unless and until those directly involved can themselves start making some progress even if it is limited progress, in this direction. It is a great disappointment that so far this progress is lacking.
The Americans have for their part repeatedly made it clear that they are prepared to join in serious negotiations at any time, subject to only one condition: the right of the Vietnamese people to determine their own future without outside interference. I do not think that anyone can dispute in principle this right. There may be disagreement about how it should properly be implemented, what sort of electoral process there should be and what sort of supervision is necessary to ensure that the result is a fair one which really represents the wishes of the people of the country of South Vietnam. This is a matter which in my view could properly be discussed. But I do not think that the American insistence on this right can possibly be represented as an obstacle to negotiations taking place.
The Communist position is that they still insist on two pre-conditions for serious talks: first, American agreement to complete an unconditional withdrawal; and secondly, the setting up in South Vietnam, in advance of any elections, of a coalition government from which the present elected South Vietnamese Government would specifically be excluded. It is a matter of opinion whether these are justified requests or not. But to insist on their acceptance, as the North Vietnamese do, before talks have even begun seems to me completely unhelpful and unrealistic. This is what the talks themselves surely must be about. I hope that if they cannot specifically withdraw these two pre-conditions, then at least a way can be found to put them to one side for the time being so that real talks can start.
President Nixon has repeatedly made it clear that a negotiated settlement is and remains his primary objective; and I think this is absolutely right. We have always said that a negotiated political settlement is the only one which can last

759
and which can do justice to all the parties concerned. This will mean concessions by both sides, and I am under no illusions that it will involve a long process of hard bargaining. But I believe that such a settlement could be worked out, and every day that the start of negotiations is put back means another day before the war can be ended.
So long as a negotiated settlement is not possible, President Nixon has his alternative plan of Vietnamisation. This means essentially turning over responsibility to the South Vietnamese for their own defence on a progressive and phased basis. It is a second best, as the President himself recognises, but at least it is a way of making progress; and his recent announcement that another 150,000 American troops will be withdrawn by next spring is a further clear indication that he intends to press on with it. This means that by next spring nearly half the total number of American forces in Vietnam will have gone. In the light of this, I do not see how it can reasonably be argued, as some people have suggested, that the Americans want a long-term continuing military involvement in Indo-China. The evidence is that they want exactly the opposite.
The North Vietnamese, for their part, seem to have no constructive proposals or plans other than reiterating their unacceptable pre-conditions. I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that they are not interested in the free expression of the will of the people in the South, but that they believe that if they keep the war going long enough, they will get all they want without having to make any concessions in exchange. I hope that I am wrong about this, and that they will yet be willing to take part in the give and take of real negotiations. But their behaviour so far has given no sign of this.
Recent events in Cambodia, with American and South Vietnamese forces moving across the border in strength, have caused grave concern throughout the world. It has raised the question: is this an intention by the United States to escalate and extend the area of fighting in the long term, or is it a tactical exercise to relieve pressure on South Vietnamese and American forces in Vietnam? Is it, as was clearly stated by the United States Government, an intervention limited in
760
scale and in time, and will it prove so? As to the intention, we have the words of President Nixon on the 20th of April, and of course subsequently; namely, that the decision to enter Cambodia had been taken
"to protect our men who are in Vietnam and to guarantee the continued success of the withdrawal and Vietnamisation programmes".
He went on to say:
"We have made and will continue to make every possible effort to end this war through negotiation at the conference table rather than through more fighting on the battle field."
For my part—and I think that of this House—I would take these words as a denial of a change of policy by the United States authorities, and an expression of their continued desire for a negotiated settlement.
As regards our attitude towards specific actions such as that now taken by the Americans in Cambodia, I have explained why I do not think we should pass judgment at this time. President Nixon gave an assurance on television last Friday evening that the great majority of all American units will be out of Cambodia by mid-June, and all Americans, including advisers, by the end of that month. Concern must, however, remain, for as a consequence of this action there must be the possibility of counter-action which would make the efforts for a negotiated settlement even more difficult.
We have a specific concern in the problem of Vietnam and the associated questions of Laos and Cambodia in our capacity as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference. Apart from this, however, we have a wider general interest in the establishment of peaceful conditions throughout the area, where we have substantial trade and investment. We have long made it clear that we are ready to help in any way which the parties concerned believe could be useful. There could be another Geneva Conference or a Geneva-type conference, or it could take some other form. What is essential, and so far lacking, is an indication that those principally concerned are prepared to take part. Until we have that, there cannot be any prospect of success.
In the past we have on numerous occasions, both publicly and privately, urgently called upon the Soviet Co-Chairman to join with us in recalling the Geneva Conference. In so doing, we

761
have acted in the knowledge that South Vietnam, the United States and their Allies would heed such a call. We had hoped that the great and powerful influence of the Soviet Union could have the same effect on the other side. We have never been successful. But, my Lords, we must try again. On the 1st of May the Secretary of Slate asked the Soviet Ambassador to pass on a message to Mr. Gromyko expressing the hope that the Soviet Union could now give its agreement to a new conference. He repeated that call urgently last week.
We welcome and support the call made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for a fresh effort to bring this war to an end. We should naturally have welcomed it if action could have been taken in the United Nations context to try to help achieve a settlement in Vietnam. But the North Vietnamese have consistently maintained their attitude that this matter is no concern of the United Nations, and this has always frustrated any progress in this way.
In the absence of an international conference, we look to the parties primarily involved to make more headway either in Paris or elsewhere. If this could be done, then perhaps the conference could be called to develop this and draw up an eventual settlement. We hope also that progress can be made in contacts between the parties in Laos and perhaps Cambodia. There is an obvious limit to what these can achieve because of the external factors which I have described, but nevertheless I believe that any progress should be welcomed.
Her Majesty's Government welcome also initiatives such as those now being taken by a number of Asian countries to tackle this problem. We believe that this reflects the growing sense of identity in South-East Asia. It is wholly in accordance with our belief that the way to make progress is by consultation. We wish the Conference soon to begin in Djakarta every success. Any move by Asian countries directed at achieving a settlement of the problem will have our support.
In short, I believe that we should keep trying to explore any possible way to make progress. We are constantly in touch with our Russian Co-Chairman and with other interested countries to this end. We try to avoid any rigid preconceived
762
ideas. We recognise that the countries involved have genuine misgivings and very real fears, and that they may well be reluctant to commit themselves to a solution which in their view would jeopardise their essential interests. But I still believe that a solution could be worked out which would safeguard the essential interests of all concerned. If we can in any way help towards this, we stand ready to do so.
If I were to sum up the views of the British Government, which I hope and believe will have the support of this House, I do not think I can do better than draw the attention of the House to the concluding remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on May 5 in another place when he said this:
"First, that the House gives its full backing to the actions of the Government, in this new perspective of danger, aimed at convening a conference capable of ensuring that ail these questions can be resolved round the conference table.
Second, that, as a matter of urgency, all the efforts of Her Majesty's Government, together with all those whom we can influence or persuade, should be directed to securing the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the soil of Cambodia.
Third, for the very same reason, and because it has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government, of the American Government, of the Soviet Government, and, I believe, of practically every Government throughout the world, the withdrawal of foreign troops and foreign intervention from Vietnam itself, as soon as we have secured the elements of a lasting and honourable settlement which assures to the people of Vietnam their own inalienable right to decide for themselves their own future.
Fourth, that the Indo-Chinese territories, areas from which peace has been a stranger now for the whole of a quarter of a century since war ended in Europe, should have the right of peaceful development free from foreign interference. For this purpose they should have the right to declare their neutrality free of foreign interference, and to have that neutrality respected by international agreement.
Fifth, and in a wider sense, the whole House recognises the undeniable very much wider fact, which overlies all conflict in Asia, that the conflict of South-East Asia, and every manifestation of that conflict, cannot be decided on a world scale without the representation on a world scale, at the United Nations, of the Chinese Government and the Chinese people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 5/5/70; col. 266.]
These five points, at the end of this debate, represent the basis on which Her Majesty's Government intend to work for a solution to this tragic problem. I have

763
no doubt that the House will endorse those views and intentions. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the situation in South-East Asia.—(Lord Shepherd.)
5.43 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not want to be ungracious to the Government, for they have given us some time in which to debate this Motion, but I feel bound to say that it is rather a pity that a debate which has 17 speakers, and which is on an issue as important as this, should be held as second business in this House after a Bill of some magnitude. I tried to persuade the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip of the error of their ways, but I failed and so I will say no more about it. In any event, if rumour is true, it may be that for the next month or so I shall not be agreeing with anything that noble Lords opposite say, but on this occasion I agreed with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said. So I will leave it at that. In any event, I do not intend to detain your Lordships very long.
Although the terms of the Motion are to call attention to the problems of South-East Asia, it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has pointed out, the recent developments in Cambodia and Vietnam which are the immediate cause of this debate. Since on the outcome of what is happening in Vietnam may very well depend the whole future of South-East Asia, it is an important and timely debate. We in this House have waited ten days or so before we could have a debate. Consequently, we can look with rather less passion and more knowledge at the actions of the United States Government and the consequences which will flow from what has happened. So far as I am concerned, it is still a good deal too early to say whether the advice on which the Americans decided to enter Cambodia was right; or whether the gains that they have made in captured material, food and ammunition outweigh the propaganda advantages which their opponents have undoubtedly seized.
I do not think fat least I hope not) that the Foreign Secretary would wish to alter a word of the speech that he made in another place a week ago. It
764
seems to me that what he said was fair and reasonable. We do not know on what advice the American Government acted, and we ourselves are not directly concerned in a military way, and therefore we should not be too hasty in condemning actions about which we are not fully informed. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly true that the American action in taking the war on to Cambodian soil caused grave misgivings to a large section of people. It seems to me that they fall, broadly speaking, into two classes: there are those who believe that the Americans should never have been in South Vietnam in the first place, because in their view the war there was unwinnable and, consequently, in the end the Americans would have to leave with their main purpose unfulfilled. Allied to that, although with a slightly different angle, there are those who believe that force of any kind is not, in this situation or, indeed, in the latter part of the twentieth century, the right way to settle anything, and they are as critical of the Viet Cong as they are of the Americans; and as critical of the Russians in Czechoslovakia as they are of all situations in which force plays a part. I can respect and understand these points of view, although I do not necessarily share them. I want to say something more about that later on.
There is another class of people who oppose the Americans and who, it seems to me, have done so for wholly different reasons. They are basically anti-American; basically anti-West and basically opposed to our way of life. They would much rather that the Viet Cong succeeded in their military conquests of South Vietnam than that the South Vietnamese should be allowed to decide their own fate. They have a double standard in which no criticism is made of the Viet Cong for their aggression, or for their use of Cambodia and Laos in the war in South-East Asia.
In the view of these people only one side is wrong, and that side is always wrong, regardless of whether it uses force, or has force used against it. While decrying the use by the Americans of force in Vietnam, they will applaud Russian actions in Czechoslovakia; and while deriding American imperialists for using force, they will turn what is often a peaceful demonstration into a violent

765
one, using the very violence in their own cause which they so deplore in other people. I do not say that they are a very large section of the population or, indeed, a very large proportion of those who were concerned at the American action. But that attitude of bigoted intolerance is an ugly phenomenon which none of us can afford to take too lightly, and it never seems to occur to those people that their behaviour leads ultimately to the danger of over-reaction by those whose restraint they are now abusing. We have seen what they did last Sunday, in the demonstrations in Grosvenor Square and in the West End. We have seen how they howled at and shouted down the Foreign Secretary, and I hope we have noted what their motives are, why they are doing it and how they are doing it.
My Lords, I do not start, as they do, on the assumption that everything the Americans do is wrong. On the contrary, when I look back over the last 30 years and see what America has done in getting Europe on her feet again, with Marshall Aid; in her generosity in coming to the aid of underdeveloped countries and in the way in which she has shouldered the lion's share of the defence of the Free World, I do not question American motives. On the contrary, I think they are likely to be generous and high-minded.
There may be differences of opinion about whether it was wise for the United States to get into Vietnam. There are some who think—and with hindsight I wonder if they are right: I do not know—that as the French were unable to complete their war satisfactorily in Indonesia it was hardly likely that the Americans would do so either. But whether the Americans were right or wrong to go into Vietnam, nobody can deny that their motives were entirely honourable. They went into Vietnam because they felt it their duty to help a small country which was being subverted and invaded against its own wishes, and they thought that if this were allowed to continue without any kind of response on the part of the United States—the most powerful country in that part of the world—then the whole credibility of the Americans as champions of the Free World would be undermined. They may have been wrong, but they certainly were
766
not dishonourable. After all, in rather different circumstances, because we were responsible for the administration of the country we fought in Malaysia against subversion from inside and outside, and we succeeded, though at times the position was very black, in defeating that subversion and in handing over a country stable and prosperous to a freely elected Government.
My Lords, these decisions about whether or not to intervene are very hard decisions to make. It really is impossible to know at what stage a successful enterprise such as the British operations in Malaysia becomes an unsuccessful, or at any rate, a partially unsuccessful, operation such as Vietnam; and it is difficult to say whether it is better not to try at all. Those of us who are friends of the Americans have watched with the greatest sympathy the appallingly difficult decisions they have had to take: the decision to bomb in North Vietnam; the decision to stop short of really effective bombing; the decision to stop bombing in North Vietnam, so that negotiations with Hanoi could take place, and then the complete lack of response from Hanoi to those overtures. Although both President Johnson and President Nixon have made it quite clear that successful negotiations would entail the complete withdrawal of American troops, there has been no indication of any change of heart from Hanoi. On the contrary, the war has continued, and ever-increasingly the territories of the neutral States of Cambodia and Laos have been used by the Viet Cong and Hanoi to fight the South Vietnamese and the Americans. During the whole of this time America has been fighting this war with one hand tied behind her back, unable to use her full military power and unable to trespass on the soil of the neutral States from which land attacks were mounted and provisions supplied. And in everything they have done the Americans have had to weigh up the effect on their neighbours, for a withdrawal that looked like a defeat could lead to shattering the morale of their friends.
Here it seems to me that we, a country with enormous interests in South-East Asia, both in trade and in investment, have ourselves to take a view. South-East Asia has been in a very unsettled state ever since the end of the war, and

767
I myself believe that, but for British presence and American presence, the map of South-East Asia would look very different to-day from what it does. What would have happened to Indonesia had not the British stood with the Malaysians in their confrontation policy? What would have happened to Malaysia itself? Where would Thailand have been; and, indeed, what is happening there now—when we know there is considerable subversion in the North of that country—and what would have been the consequent effect on the remaining free countries in that part of the world?
It seems to me that the credibility of America and of the West is critical in safeguarding the independence of those countries, and if, as a result of what happens in Vietnam, American credibility is damaged then the safety of South-East Asia is to that extent diminished. Smaller countries will begin to look round and say, "In the event of trouble we don't see anybody who in the last resort is going to be our friend and stick up for us." There may be some who ask, "Does that really matter?"My Lords, I think it does matter. I think it matters for the people in those countries themselves, who have no wish to be subverted or to become Communist. I think it matters for our kinsmen in Australia and New Zealand, and I think it matters ultimately for the safety and the peace of the whole world.
I do not think I would forecast, or have the knowledge to forecast, whether or not the Americans are likely to reach a successful military solution in Vietnam coupled with an acceptable peace. It may be that the operation in Cambodia, by its capture of the vast quantities of ammunition and food, may shorten the war and make withdrawal easier. But so far as I can judge, an outright military victory is very unlikely. Consequently, there must be an alternative to the continuation of the fighting, and the only possible alternative is some form of negotiation, and some form of negotiation which is helped by the Big Powers. And I agree wholeheartedly with what the Foreign Secretary has said and with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just said.
It may be that there does not seem to be much likelihood of making progress,
768
and I think we must say that, at any rate so far, the attitude of the Russians has been very discouraging. But I remember very well how discouraging the omens were for my noble friend Lord Avon, when he was Foreign Secretary—and perhaps I might say at this juncture how very pleased the whole House will be to see my noble friend here. This is the first occasion since his recent operation on which he has taken part in any public debate, and it is very nice to see him back in this House. He, when he was Foreign Secretary. was faced with just as difficult a situation and yet, after the most strenuous and prolonged negotiations, he managed to get the Geneva Settlement.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I do not believe, even now, that it is impossible for us to do the same. I am quite sure that every one of us in this House would, and will, do everything in his or her power to help to achieve such an outcome. It seems to me that is the way in which we in this country can be useful—not by condemnation of the Americans or by passing resolutions or by demonstrations, but by a determination to continue, however difficult and however discouraging we may find it, the efforts we have made so far to find a peaceful solution to the Vietnam problem.
6.0 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I should like to start by associating myself completely with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and saying how much we welcome the presence among us to-day of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, than whom no one knows more about the situation in South-East Asia or produced more in the way of constructive proposals for arriving at a peaceful settlement.
My Lords, the action of President Nixon in ordering American troops into Cambodia has given rise to a large number of rather violent accusations, most of which seem to be entirely unjustified. In the first place, there has been the accusation that this was violating the neutrality of Cambodia. That frankly is absurd, for the reasons so well deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and which I naturally will not repeat, beyond saying that, in a way, it was father extraordinary, given the great

769
build-up of arms and ammunition the other side of the non-existent Cambodian frontier, that the Americans had not done this kind of thing before.
So we come to another accusation which is that the President has been guilty of an act of aggression under the United Nations Charter. This is equally absurd. If any State has been guilty of an act of aggression it is North Vietnam, which from 1954 until now has not ceased to try to overturn the Government of South Vietnam by force of arms, because it believed, on ideological grounds, that its own form of national Communism was something which was, so to speak, the wave of the future and therefore bound to impose itself in the interests of the human race. But though ideology may explain, it does not excuse, aggression. It is in the concept of an act of aggression as such, and not on the ideology of the wave of the future, that the security system embodied in the United Nations Charter, as we all know, has rested, and will rest for so long as the United Nations retain any significance.
We hear that President Nixon ought nevertheless, before invading Cambodia, to have brought the whole issue before the United Nations. But, my Lords, what issue? In any event, the North Vietnamese, and their powerful Chinese backers, are not members of the United Nations. Nor is there the slightest suggestion that either the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations would be able to deal satisfactorily with the problem. After all, the United States has a veto in the Council, and if there were a large majority in the Assembly, as there very well might be, for the immediate and total withdrawal of United States troops, that would certainly not help, either. Resolutions of the Assembly have, of course, no binding force from the legal point of view on non-signatories.
Considerations of the same sort apply to the possibility of taking part in a conference convened by the co-chairmen of the Conference of 1954; namely, Britain and France. It is not (perhaps this has been said already but certainly it ought to be repeated) President Nixon who would refuse to take part in such a conference: it is the Russians who are objecting to doing so at the present time
770
—not, I repeat, the Americans. In any case, the position is more difficult now than it was in 1954, because then the Chinese were prepared to come in and it is very doubtful whether they would do anything of the kind now.
Should the President, then, have consulted his NATO allies before crossing the nominal jungle frontier? I believe somebody said in another place in discussion of this matter that this would almost have been equivalent to discussing the devaluation of a currency before actually announcing the fact. If there is anything in the theory that the enemy's main command posts were in the so-called Parrot's Beak, then it would have been folly to have risked a leak which would have resulted in its withdrawal, and perhaps demolition, before the troops arrived. Finally, it certainly cannot be said that the President by invading Cambodia has in some way sabotaged the direct negotiations that have been going on for so long in Paris. What has happened there is that the other side, in spite of the desperate efforts of the Americans, have simply refused to play, because they are convinced—they are at the moment, anyhow—that the Americans are on the run. Let us hope that they will be disillusioned. They therefore do not want to make concessions now which they feel they may have for the asking later on.
What, then, are the legitimate criticisms, if any, of the President's action? Here I think my analysis may differ slightly from that presented by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, though in a general way I agree very largely with what he said. The real criticism, I feel, is not so much about the invasion of Cambodia as such; it relates to the conduct of the war during the last fifteen years or so in South-East Asia as a whole. What really gave expression to the tremendous outburst of protest in the United States of America, and indeed to profound disquiet in this country, not least among the friends of America, was the fear lest the invasion of Cambodia might be the prelude to an indefinite extension of an already disastrous war.
Happily, after the declaration of Mr. Nixon at his Press Conference on May 7, it seems that this is not so; that having, as may be hoped, destroyed the resources of the adversary in the Cambodian "sanctuary" (as it is called)

771
all American troops will be back over the border by the end of June; that is to say, before the monsoon may be expected to break. If that happens, it will be shown that the whole gesture which has dismayed the world and divided America was only designed to assist the originally announced purpose; namely, to withdraw the bulk of American troops from South Vietnam by about the end of the present year, or next spring. And, if the second 150,000 are moved then, more than half of the original American Army will have been withdrawn. If, therefore, this process of withdrawal is resumed, and it is seen that the destruction of the "sancturaries" is helping the forces of South Vietnam to put up adequate resistance to the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese, then the whole Cambodian operation might be justified, and Mr. Nixon at the end of the year might even be receiving the congratulations of some of his allies and—who knows?—the congratulations of some of his domestic political opponents as well.
But it is at this point that a certain doubt seems to creep in. Can the American Army really be brought out of South Vietnam without grave loss of face unless they really have ensured the future of some independent Government in South Vietnam? Even if it is, might not all the countries of South-East Asia, including South Vietnam, "go Communist" (as the saying is) in accordance with the well-known "domino" theory? Above all, will the situation at home become sufficiently revolutionary to force the Ad-, ministration to act against what it may believe to be the interests of the State, and, if it does, what will be the effect on the maintenance of United States' forces in Western Europe, to say nothing of the maintenance of a pro-Western attitude in the Government of Japan?
Well, there must be very few in this country who believe that the huge military commitment of the United States in South Vietnam has been anything but an error of the first magnitude. I think it has already been said that most of us would give the Americans the credit for good intentions, and there is no reason to believe that the whole thing was a plot on the part of the Pentagon or the CIA. The tragedy is that the entire philosophy of the "containment of Communism" has
772
been vitiated, as it were, in Asia by the rise of nationalism and the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that the Western World, by the mere fact of its vast technological superiority, is trying to fasten a sort of neo-colonialist hegemony on the people of the so-called "developing" countries, who number about two-thirds of the population of the world. The paradox is that the country in which Communism started is increasingly being associated, in the minds of the developing countries, with the West.
It follows that a military victory in an area of the world such as South-East Asia is simply not possible; and unless they are uselessly to pour out even more treasure and sacrifice even more American lives, the United States of America will eventually have to recognise that fact. The inhabitants of the Vietnams, of Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma and Malaysia will thus one day have to be left to their own devices—and they may not be very pleasant devices. Certainly one or the other may be friendly, or not so friendly, with one or another of the super Powers, who may well continue to supply one or the other of them with arms and advice. But what is certain is that no super Power will be in a position to impose itself in the area by direct military means. And if, by the force of things, none can in practice impose an hegemony, then, with luck, there will eventually be formed in the area that famous "Asian balance of power" of which Mr. Enoch Powell talked in one of his more regenerate moments when he followed my own lead on the desirability of the liquidation of our own military bases East of Suez.
But the main danger is that if the legions are withdrawn without at least a seeming success in leaving behind an independent South Vietnam, not only will great bitterness spread over the whole of the United States, thus further dividing an already divided nation, but the failure of what was generally regarded as a "peace-keeping mission" or a "crusade against Communism" will make it more difficult for any American Government to continue to undertake the defence of Europe. This would be illogical; for whereas the South-East Asian jungle is quite unlikely to be occupied, or indeed to come under the direct influence of China, a highly urbanised Western

773
Europe could quite easily be occupied or, more likely, come under the direct influence of the Soviet Union. In other words, the world balance of power need not be gravely upset by a withdrawal of the American power from South-East Asia: but it certainly would be greatly upset if that power faltered, or even vanished, in Central Europe.
So, my Lords, what should we do? In the first place it is obvious that we should not be led by emotion into publicly condemning the President whose action, as we have seen, may in any case prove to be justified in the event. The screaming hysteria of the hundred young men and women who prevented the Foreign Secretary from speaking at the Oxford Union the other day is something which, one would have thought, would be condemned by the vast majority in this country, irrespective of their age groups, outside the "loony bin". Mr. Nixon may not be a popular character. His chief defect—which, after all, is not a fatal defect—seems to be to want to please everybody at once.
But far from publicly condemning him, we ought, I suggest, to try to influence this complicated and difficult man; and perhaps one of the best means of influencing him in practice would be, as I said yesterday, to suggest that in Western Europe we, with our European friends, are from now on prepared to take a little of the load off the perplexed and discouraged Americans' shoulders. At any rate it is not evident what we could otherwise do which would influence him one way or the other in the slightest degree. As for advice, which he will certainly not ask for and which I imagine our Ambassador would be rather reluctant to proffer, we should, no doubt, continue to express, as in the past, our grave concern about the possibility of an extension of the war in South-East Asia generally. Nor should we hesitate to say in private that, in our view, the only hope for him, and indeed for all of us, is the withdrawal of all the American forces from South Vietnam well before the end of his first Presidency at the end of 1972. Further than that I do not think we can possibly go.
If the progressive withdrawal from South Vietnam is really held up, perhaps at the behest of the Pentagon, or possibly
774
the C.I.A., it may be that we shall have to think again. If the Administration, on the other hand, yields to the pressure of the revolutionary students and professors—which I must say seems to me to be quite unlikely—then we might have to think again in a contrary sense. Much will depend on whether America gets out of its present economic difficulties, and some people suppose she will not get out of those difficulties until she has also got out of the terrible paddy fields of Indo-China.
My Lords, all wars are horrible. It may be that the war in South-East Asia is more horrible than most, but I doubt it. The bombing of little towns in Cambodia and North Vietnam may properly seem to us to be dreadful; but what did we think, at the time, of the bombing of Dresden and the burning alive of vast numbers of defenceless refugees? It seems to me indeed that we are about the last people who ought to condemn bombing barbarities on the part of others. What is true is that the Vietnam war is the only one in history which has actually been seen and observed physically by countless millions in all the countries of the Western world. It may be that this will result in a wave of total pacificism, at any rate among the young. Or it may so brutalise us all that we are prepared to accept anything. Who can tell? But one thing is certain: everything that we can do—that is to say everything that is not counter-productive—we should do in order, in the first place, to avert any extension of the Vietnam war involving the Great Powers; in the second place to assist President Nixon to withdraw entirely from Vietnam in the reasonably near future, and in the third place to draw all the necessary conclusions from the fact that, whatever happens in Cambodia, we are probably in for a period of rather diminished American leadership all over the world.
My Lords, it is indeed not really Cambodia which underlines our uneasy discussion this afternoon: it is the uncertainty in our Western World about the general aim of our industrialised society. The great ground for hope is that, unlike the situation beyond the Elbe, this discussion still takes place in the open and people are not sent to gaol or to appalling prison camps for the mere expression of

775
opinion, or even for demonstrating in the streets. The danger is that any war which gives rise to intense patriotic emotions, perhaps more particularly among what used to be called the working-classes, may produce a strong reaction against the so-called permissive and ultra-liberal society favoured by students and professors, which could even result—perhaps not here but certainly elsewhere—in a sort of police state. Demonstrators of all kinds against what is thought to be the wickedness of Mr. Nixon or the Pentagon ought to be aware of this. It is certainly not the populations of the developing countries who would stand to gain by the emergence of totalitarianism in any countries of the Western World. More than that, we might even be well on the way to World War III. Children should, after all, more especially in a nuclear age, be warned by their parents that it is dangerous to play with fire.
6.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF AVON: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friends for their kindly welcome back. I was anxious to be here this afternoon to offer, if I could, one or two suggestions in this very tragic and disturbing situation which continues to confront us, unfortunately, in South East Asia. I have no criticism to make at all of the statement the noble Lord made just now from the Government. My attitude is a little different. I should like to comment on one or two of the recent military developments and also to suggest one or two possible methods of approach to try to bring an end to these long-drawn-out hostilities.
It seems to me that if we are to make a useful contribution to this debate we have to consider both recent events, as the two last speakers have done, in the Indo-China war—because unhappily it is an Indo-China war once again—and also the international background against which those events have to be set. For some months past there has been an important development, or so it seems to me, in the Mekong Delta, the richest and most thickly populated part of South Vietnam. There are now no American combatant units at all, I am informed, in the Mekong Delta. That does not mean that there has been no recent fighting, but
776
it is notable that the South Vietnamese forces have been able to contend with increasing success against enemy incursions there. Perhaps this success has been in part due to the fact that the attacking forces have of late mostly been composed of North Vietnamese rather than Viet Cong. I notice that Mr. Secretary Laird has estimated that three out of four of the Communist forces in South Vietnam now come from the North. If this is true, and I have no reason to suppose that it is not, it could explain the improved South Vietnamese military performance against an enemy less familiar with the terrain than the Viet Cong had been.
I mention all this—the House will see this at once—because the importance of this turn of events is that it could have had its influence upon North Vietnamese military planning recently. However that may be, there can be no doubt that by the invasion of Laos and of Cambodia and by the establishment of new bases in Cambodia, North Vietnam has tried to disrupt the pacified area of the Mekong and to turn the United States withdrawal into a rout. That was the object of the exercise. But I think they would have done better not to attempt it. As they have attempted it, can we with any justice condemn President Nixon or the United States Command for taking action to counter that attempt? I do not think we can. Personally I dislike very much the policy which is called "search and destroy". It is generally bad tactics, because it makes enemies where it should have the purpose of consolidating friends. But in this instance, when aimed against an underground complex of ammunition and stores, accumulated in invaded territory to attack South Vietnamese and American forces in the flank and in the rear, a military counter-action to destroy that build-up then appears, to me at least, to be not only excusable but well-nigh inescapable.
The joint American and South Vietnamese thrust into Cambodia does not seem to me to be evidence of an American intention to delay the withdrawal of their forces from Vietnam, still less to try to settle the conflict by military means alone. We all know that cannot be done; the Americans know it perfectly well, too. I see the thrust rather as evidence that the United States was not prepared

777
to see its plans for withdrawal delayed and the work of Vietnamisation disrupted from bases established during the North Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, against which, as the noble Lord mentioned, Prince Sihanouk had himself earlier and frequently protested.
However, much more important than debate about the motives for the action in combat of either side is to consider whether this turn of events opens up any possibilities of negotiation. I think it might. But before considering these, something must be said about the position in Laos, because it affects the negotiations, if there are to be any. The 1954 Agreement left Prince Souvanna Phouma at the head of a neutralist government in Laos, all parties at the conference, China included, having agreed to the establishment of the French military missions to train the Laotian Army. Then followed what was an unhappy interlude. Unwisely, as we and the French thought, the United States Government at that time did not approve of the neutrality of Souvanna Phouma's Administration and they refused it aid. That Government fell a year or two later and was succeeded by a Government further to the Right, which, despite American training and equipment, fared badly. A prudent attempt by a newly appointed American Ambassador to bring the neutrals and the anti-Communists together was not supported in Washington. By the end of 1960 Prince Souvanna Phouma had fled to Cambodia, while, as a result of all this, the Pathet Lao had gained strength in Laos. Then, after more years of negotiation, a neutralisation agreement was signed in the summer of 1962.
I retell these events to show that the faults have not all been on one side in this Indo-China business. I have personally some sympathy with the comments of General Ely, who I know is known to some of your Lordships, the last French commander in Indo-China and a friend both of the United States and this country, as well as a soldier of real distinction. General Ely wrote sadly of Laotian affairs:
"Nowhere else perhaps did France and Great Britain find themselves in such constant opposition to the United States about the policy to be pursued."
However, the agreement of 1962 was a declaration of the neutrality of Laos, and
778
it was endorsed by all the members of the earlier Geneva Conference, including Soviet Russia and China and the United States. This was an undertaking to respect the neutrality of Laos; and no one can deny that Prince Souvanna Phouma represents both the spirit and the fact of that neutrality.
Yet in recent years there have been continued North Vietnamese attacks on the Laotian forces in Laotian territory, which attacks have only been made possible by abundant Russian supplies of weapons and equipment, every piece of which is sent in direct violation of the agreement which Russia herself signed in 1962. Of course, it is true that American air attacks recently have been made on North Vietnamese forces in Laos, but surely the blame for that must lie on the attacking forces which have invaded the territory in the first instance and thereby violated their agreement.
So now we come to our most important consideration: what can be done to get serious negotiations going again over the whole Indo-China Sea. As we were told again this afternoon, Her Majesty's Government have rightly made frequent approaches to the Soviet Government, as their co-chairman under the 1954 Agreement, in an attempt to re-summon the Geneva Conference. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government were right to do that, and to persist in it, but so far, as I understand, they have met with no response from the Kremlin.
I suspect that a principal difficulty for the Soviet Government—and having nothing to do with any Government I can speak frankly in this business—rests in the present relationship between Moscow and Peking. It has never been worse, and I can conceive that representatives of the two countries might not wish at this particular time to sit down at a table in the company of others. A significant example of the fierce hatred that the leaders of the Soviet Union and China can feel towards each other is to be found in the remarkable exchanges (they have not been published in this country, but no doubt the Government have them) between these two countries during what should have been an amicable period, the Lenin Centenary celebrations. The Chinese celebrated this event by comparing the Kremlin leaders

779
to Hitler, and denouncing them as the successors of the Russian Czars with the same goal of world hegemony.
When Moscow answered a few days later, the reply took the form of a quite incredibly vitriolic attack on Mao Tse Tung. I should not care to repeat it in this House in any circumstances. I truly believe that your Lordships would be shocked if I did. But I have read the text, and I do not believe that any country in the Free World has ever used language like that about the Communist leader. Of course, we all know that totalitarian States can change their language and their attitude towards each other with lightning speed. We have had some of that before: we remember Hitler's about-turn towards Stalin, and vice versa.
Dealing however with the present situation, as we must do, I notice that the New York Times quoted these exchanges and drew some comfort from this exchange of amenities, commenting that:
"with such hatred and fear separating these two giant Powers, neither side is likely to want to get involved with any other major Power."
My Lords, this may be so. I hope that it is so. But for the purpose of getting negotiations going about the Indo-China War, this condition of Russian-Chinese relations is an added complication. It is certainly true that we could not have got the Agreement of 1954 without the help of Mr. Molotov, the Russian Foreign Secretary.
If Russia cannot or will not help, as co-chairman to-day, is any other method open to us? I would suggest to the Government that they should consider an approach to the French Government, to see whether they could not jointly evolve some proposals which might be put to both sides. Recently the French Government made a move on their own account to try to secure the re-calling of the Geneva Conference. They did not get far, but I thought they were right to make the attempt. France still has contacts, however unofficial, with Hanoi, and there are reasons why Hanoi would be wise to consider negotiations now. One of these is the strained relations between Hanoi's two principal backers, China and Russia. That cannot be altogether a cosy state of affairs for North Vietnam,
780
and it could become a great deal more uncomfortable still. Moreover, there are terms which could be worked out which could bring peace to Indo-China and which also could be not entirely unwelcome to China and Russia.
I have always been convinced that China's main concern in South-East Asia has been to see the withdrawal of American forces, which the Chinese fervently believe are aimed ultimately at them. If the history of the China lobby in the United States is recalled, that is perhaps not altogether surprising. But Russia, for her part, no doubt derives some satisfaction from seeing the United States divided and in trouble. One can imagine the Kremlin purring from time to time about that. On the other hand, the policy of Russia's present rulers is evidently to push at every door, regardless of cost in finance and equipment, so long as this can be done without the certainty of confrontation with the United States. Even so, the Kremlin no doubt must weigh from time to time the advantages of a settlement in Indo-China. This would at least bring an end to that troubled area's ceaseless and costly appeals for supplies, and reduce a cause of future difference between Russia and China. Faced with deteriorating Soviet and Chinese relations, Russia ought to welcome some reduction of commitments elsewhere; and there is, most unhappily, no sign of any Russian preparedness for reduced commitments in the Middle East.
The solution to be aimed at in Indo-China is the one which we attempted at Geneva but did not effectively reach then, the guaranteed neutrality of the territories. This is what Laos and Cambodia not only want but positively yearn for. How could it be applied in Vietnam? It would mean that neither side would win. It would mean that for a long period—I would say for at least ten years—South and North Vietnam would have to remain separate, divided on their existing borderline, which would have to be ensured by a revived and strengthened international commission such as the noble Lord at the opening of this debate said he looked for.
At the end of that period, all foreign forces having been phased out, the two countries would decide what their future relationship should be. It is possible that by then, with the energetic development

781
of the Mekong Delta on behalf of all the countries bordering it—Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand—the prospect would be calmer, and ideological differences would be less important. One cannot tell. But in the interests of an Indo-China, which has suffered too much, the attempt ought to be made.
To sum up then, if the Geneva Conference cannot be reconvened there is much to be said for an Anglo-French initiative such as I have suggested. I am not inviting the Government to make any comment about that, because if this negotiation by us and the French is to have any success it must essentially be secret. We have to repeat the kind of technique we used with the Trieste business, when for eight months the negotiations proceeded in secret without anybody knowing anything about them. Publicised relations on this business will get absolutely nowhere, which is why the Paris Talks, alas! have so far failed.
It might also be helpful if Western European Union—why not?—were to examine the problem and seek to help to promote a solution either directly or through Anglo-French efforts. After all, the joint examination of international problems was what the Western European Union was originally created for. We wanted them to do this, and it has not done enough of it. If it be argued—and it can be argued—that Indo-China is an important strategic area and that it is therefore difficult to make any agreement stick, I would reply that so were the Low Countries, yet an international guarantee held there for the best part of a century.
My Lords, I have one final general observation. Whether a renewed attempt at negotiations succeeds or not, the experience of Vietnam has seared the American mind. There will, for a time at least, be an increased reluctance in the United States to discharge responsibilities anywhere overseas. I do not believe for a moment that the Americans will abandon their interest in Europe, for after all the future of Western Europe is vital—to use a much-abused adjective in its correct sense—to both the super-Powers; but there is likely to be an insistent call for a reduced American military contribution.
782
We are now apparently much preoccupied with our internal political differences, and shall be for a while yet, I suppose, but as we indulge in that pastime none of us ought to forget that our own contribution, and that of other European NATO countries, is likely to have to be revised, unfortunately upwards. In 1955, I sought agreement across the Iron Curtain for an accepted reduction of forces on either side. I believe that we should pursue this, and that it is being pursued. But until that agreement is reached we have a responsibility which must be expected to grow heavier, for whichever Party has responsibility in this country, but which we must bear in stalwart fashion if we want our influence to be felt in the United States or anywhere else in the world.
6.42 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I have the great advantage in rising of following the noble Earl, Lord Avon, whom we are glad to see back and whom, of course, we respect for his achievements at the time of the 1954 Agreements on Indo-China.
My Lords, this is an occasion when I think that our discussions will have value only if they are frank, without recriminations, without bitter insinuations, but recognising what I think everyone of us at best realise: that this is a situation in which we are all involved. I say, with absolute conviction and sincerity, that I feel like an American in this situation. The only trouble is that I feel like an American professor or student in the kind of situation that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was deploring. I feel that at least from these Back Benches, where we have not got to accept the responsibility—which I recognise—which the Front Benches have for the tactics of handling a very difficult situation, those of us who sense and realise what is involved should, in fairness to our American friends, speak out. I do not see that there can be anything but false friendship in condoning, or failing to be frank about, something which is manifest to all of us, and above all manifest to the American people.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I was not suggesting that the noble Lord should not be frank; I suggested only that he might be cautious.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am exercising the kind of caution that I did not learn in the Foreign Office but learned in journalism, where I learnt the great virtue and value of responsible frankness. I repeat, nothing is gained by simply ignoring the situation now manifest in the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said, "Don't let us look for the mischief of the C.I.A. or the Pentagon". I am not looking for the mischief of the C.I.A. or the Pentagon, but the American people do look for the mischief of the C.I.A. and the Pentagon, and it would be very difficult, in the circumstances of the United States to-day, to convince many of my friends—and they are good Americans—that in point of fact the deposal of Sihanouk was a pure coincidence. Therefore, if you have a situation in which not only the strategy but the motives behind the strategy are completely suspect, then I am afraid President Nixon is in the trouble—from the American people's point of view—which he is in to-day.
I submit to those far better informed people on this subject, that one of the tragedies of the situation in the United States, apart from the complications that have arisen, is the nature of the Constitution under which a President of the United States also happens to be the Commander-in-Chief of the forces of the United States. I think that is a very great mistake, because it involves the President directly and immediately in the manipulation of the situation, which is not his natural political function.
That situation has dragged three Presidents into this trap of South-East Asia. It dragged President Kennedy into it; it was the political suicide of President Johnson; and, with all the firmness we thought was manifest in President Nixon, he finds himself involved, just as his predecessors were, because of a military appraisal which he apparently had to accept because it was stated to be in order to protect the soldiers of the American Army. Every one of us wants to protect the soldiers of the American Army, but the situation now seems to me to be one in which that mission is not being fulfilled. Let us "wait and see", as noble Lords have said; but I guarantee that that mission will not be fulfilled in the terms of the military intention. The lesson is—and I think every noble
784
Lord in the House recognises this—that in the situation in South-East Asia, or in any guerrilla situation, a military solution of this kind is not possible. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that, and I agree with him. There will be no military settlement, no military solution, in terms of any classic military approach we can think of.
The "silent majority" may not be silent, but in fact their support is not as vocal as the antagonism. In this situation, surely the best we can do, in supporting everything which the Foreign Secretary said in complete wisdom—in diplomatic wisdom, if I may put it that way—or the five points of the Prime Minister, to which I subscribe, is for a British voice to say, "We disapprove strongly of what is happening, because in fact you are walking into a trap which you should have seen". The political warfare consequences of this situation are far greater than anything that a short time would resolve.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting again, may I ask whether the noble Lord is suggesting that the Government should say this publicly, or that the Government should say this privately?
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, all I am saying is that when American professors, if you like in their folly, in their lack of caution, demonstrate at No. 10, Downing Street and say, as they did say, "We don't expect the Prime Minister to say' Nixon get out', or something like that", statesmen are, in fact, reinforced. Political wisdom is reinforced by public expressions of displeasure which strengthen the hands of the people who want to say firmly behind the scenes "This is a situation we disapprove of". That is not the act of a bad friend: I think it is the act of a good friend.
6.49 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, in apologising to your Lordships for taking your time on two consecutive days, may I say that one thing has happened this evening which I never, in my wildest moments, conceived possible—that I should have the privilege of joining in a debate after the noble Earl, Lord Avon, of whom I was for so many years the "most obedient humble servant". I have

785
found it a very moving experience to have this opportunity, and particularly to listen to the wisdom and experience of one who by his persistence, by his technique, by his personality, managed in so many international scenes to retrieve situations that seemed hopeless and to promote peace where deadlock seemed the only possibility.
It will be my hope this evening, first to speak a little on a few of the arguments that have been deployed generally, and then perhaps to follow a little the lead given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who, I am sure quite rightly, got us on to speculating about the future. The difficulty of making a coherent speech, of course, is that thoughts develop as the debate goes on and they do not lead to conclusions. One will therefore find oneself in some degree setting out ideas in a certain disorder, but I hope that the disorder may not be wholly unconstructive.
First, may I say that the professors have spoken, the British writers and artists have spoken, the statesmen have spoken, and perhaps there is a small place in the debate for a retired professional diplomat who has had a certain amount to do with the efforts, so far unhappily unsuccessful, to bring about peace, instead of the ghastly situation in Indo-China. Perhaps I may digress for a moment to say a word to the professors. Of course if you are living in somebody's else's country and it is a free country, you are perfectly at liberty to criticise in strong terms the Government of your own country; and I am glad that the professors have had the facility of speaking and demonstrating in our country. But the fact remains—and the professors should know this—that there is a fall-out. The fall-out is that if in another country you "knock" the Administration of your own country, you are to some extent "knocking" your own country as a whole. I think the professors should realise that there is a strain, over and above the strain as between them and their own Administration, which they can, if they are not careful, put on the relations between the two countries. I say this from experience and not from theory.
May I try now to deal rapidly with the Cambodia question from three points
786
of view: the moral problem, the tactical problem (if I may so call it) and then the political problem. On the moral problem a great deal has been said already, but there is perhaps one element to it which has not been sufficiently emphasised. Some of the moral accusers have said that the President has widened the war by extending it to Cambodia. In fact, the war has been conducted in and from Cambodia for at least four years. There is no question of "widening" it.
It may not be in the recollection of all of your Lordships that in 1966 Prince Sihanouk, being alarmed at what he thought was going to be interference with the sovereignty of his country, asked interested countries to combine to have the International Control Commission in Cambodia made effective. Naturally, he received support from us and from other Western countries; but from the Soviet Union nothing—not even a reply. So ever since then it has been a feature of Laos and Cambodia that the International Control Commissions have always been able to visit and move about in other parts of those countries, but never in the Communist-controlled parts. That is surely the answer to any suggestion that the Americans deserve a moral rebuke for what they did when, as we know, the situation suddenly became fluid.
Prince Sihanouk paid the price of trying to get something done by the gradual development of a policy which became known in Asia as "non-alignment anti-West". That is not a phrase that makes great sense, except that it happens. That process struck more and more at the roots of the real non-alignment of Cambodia. So he went off on his last desperate mission, as it seems, to persuade Moscow and Peking to help. At that point his countrymen had had enough, and they opted—perhaps foolishly but, let us admit it, courageously—for a different alternative.
There are two points that I should like to make on Cambodia. Perhaps nobody will speak on behalf of the Cambodians, so may I do so for a moment. In the first place, when the Cambodians overturned Prince Sihanouk and there appeared a likelihood of hostilities between them and the Viet Cong, a number of people rushed to Phnom Penh, found it a very simple city, and immediately said

787
that the Cambodians ought not to be so silly; they ought to make the best terms they could with the Viet Cong, North Vietnam and the Communists and, so to speak, not give anybody else any trouble. This seems to me to be a thoughtless denial of a great deal for which a great many people in the world have fought from one time to another. It is a denial that Mr. Dubcek had any right to support revolution in Czechoslovakia, it is a denial that the Yugoslavs had any right to oppose the Nazis in 1941—and then in 1940 and on backwards, as your Lordships will understand.
The second point about the Cambodians is this. There has been some careless and rather pompous talk over the air about a Cambodian Government in exile in Peking. Now that may be Prince Sihanouk's wish. But surely naivety cannot go much further, because all must recognise that in Peking Prince Sihanouk is the total servant of the Chinese Government and, whatever he wishes, there is nothing else he can do.
If I may now proceed to the tactical point, there is one matter which has not been mentioned. When you decide to take your decisions and your views on international policy on a basis of emotion, the first thing you must always do is to burn your map. If, on the other hand, you do not burn your map but look at it, you find some surprising things. Most people think that Asia is a place of vast expanses and immense distances, and they are mostly right. But, oddly enough, in this corner of Indo-China, that is not the case. Phnom Penh can be reached by a well-directed crow from Saigon in 130 miles only. The same crow travelling from Saigon to the frontier in the Parrot's Beak, as it is called, has to fly only 37 miles. If, then, the Americans had not taken the action which they have taken, they would have had to leave South Vietnam in due course, with some untampered with Viet Cong and North Vietnamese bases as far away from Saigon as Reading is from London, and that would have been that. So if one is inclined to question whether the American operation was right or wrong, one must ask oneself: if they had not undertaken it in the present fluid circumstances, and if they had left the South Vietnamese face to face with an organised
788
base in the hands of the North Vietnamese about as far away as Reading, would not the South Vietnamese have had some pretty fierce criticisms of their so-called allies? On the tactical side, one might even go further, and say that in any Realpolitik situation the American action could be described as inadequate, rather than excessive.
Of course this is not a legitimate criticism because, coming on to the political aspect of this situation, we all know that America as a whole is unanimous in the feeling that somehow and soon American armed forces must leave Vietnam. Therefore the real question about what the American Administration has done is whether it has put a more than tolerable strain on the American internal situation and a more than tolerable strain on the international situation. The latter I do not believe to be the case. I believe that, as so often at the present time, there is an excessive immediate reaction, partly emotional and partly promoted, to events like this, by some of the categories of people of whom the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke. But the international community has a way of recovering from these jags, and the evidence of that, or at least part of the evidence of that, is the difference, I think, between the feelings behind our debate and the feelings behind the debate in another place. Even if there are deep differences of opinion, the atmosphere is not like it was a week ago. So I think that in the international sense one can say that, as the operation has developed, those of us who were able or who tried to keep a calm view of this matter find that it is developing in the way that President Nixon undertook that it would.
Internally in America it is more difficult to tell. This is partly because, as your Lordships are aware, views in America are held with very great intensity, and one has to have a considerable number of friends with differing views to work out what is the mean of American opinion. It is particularly difficult to tell because the two main East Coast newspapers have for many years been very much anti-Vietnam. It is also difficult to tell because one has alarming reports that 200 universities are in a bad state over this—without its being added that America has some 5,000 universities. So it is very difficult to make a judgment on the nature and deepness of the explosion.

789
One's guess would be that the American public policy now will wait anyway until the end of June before deciding whether what has been done is intolerable or whether in fact it was a wise piece of reassurance for the South Vietnamese, which is what we must believe it to be unless it is proved otherwise. I think, if I may say so, that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, somewhat exaggerated the extent of the implication that the President, being Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, is submissive to the influence of a body of which he is the direct head. After all, he is the direct head of a great many other things besides, including the State.
Now may I pass to the prospects and the question, what should Her Majesty's Government do? I attach the very greatest importance at this moment to commending (if this does not sound patronising) the record of Her Majesty's Government in attempting to get the parties in this dispute to meet and to get somewhere with negotiations, whether collectively or bilaterally. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made this very clear in another place; and I think that perhaps he understated what the Government have done in this repect. Speaking as a former professional diplomat, I would say that the Government have gone even further in this matter to the extent of doing things which were not (shall I say?) diplomatically credible in an effort to find an answer. And this is intended, I would assure the Minister, as a compliment and not a criticism or a reproach. Sometimes things which are not diplomatically credible turn out to be the right answer. In this tragic case they have not yet been so. But I am sure the Government have been right to try everything they legitimately could in using their position as co-chairman of the Geneva Conference to find a way.
I have no doubt also that they will be right to persist. But here, if I may say so very gently, I think the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, while extremely informative, was just a little bland. In the first place, we must be very clear—and the truth is rough on this—that a conference is a means and not an end. What a conference will be discussing is not amiable compromise: it will be discussing a deep conviction by the leadership in North Vietnam that it
790
was promised, and ought to have, South Vietnam in full sovereignty. The South Vietnamese will naturally contest this. This is the kind of bedrock of argument which will cloud the proceedings. It certainly always has been the case hitherto that negotiations with Communist Powers always start in the tradition of the Stalin policy in World War II, which is to go for the lot, and not to think of compromise. In face of that, you have to go on and on with your arguing, until suddenly, it may be, something breaks—and that is what one must hope for. But I think it is only right to be quite clear in one's mind how difficult it all is.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, suggested that the conference might not occur in the former way because of the relations between the Soviet Union and China. I think this also has to be thought out very carefully. For instance, would it be worth while to have a conference including the Soviet Union and not including China? Probably it would. Would it be worth while having a conference with China but excluding the Soviet Union. Probably not. But, again, who knows? All these things need a great deal of thought and work.
Again, the noble Earl had the suggestion that we might work together with the French towards some form of progress. Here, one would have to express the hope that, whereas one could not have done this with the France of General de Gaulle, one might be able to do this with the France of Monsieur Pompidou. The reason for this is that the France of General de Gaulle would never have had the confidence of the Americans, whereas it is possible that the France of Monsieur Pompidou would. This again is no doubt worth very careful and also very confidential exploration, because it is true, as the noble Earl said, that the French still have something to say in Indo-China. On the other hand, I would, with great respect, differ from the noble Earl in the thought that the Western European Union could do anything effectively. If there was one thing that I learned in service in Asia, it was that whereas individual European effort is very often welcomed in any situation, corporate European effort is nearly always suspect. Again I cannot pretend that this is logical or rational, but I can assure your Lordships that it is a fact.

791
So the third alternative for making progress somewhere, which has also been raised in this debate, is one which I personally think is probably the most hopeful in the long run; that is, the Asian approach. It has become more productive in recent years to allow a region at least to start trying to solve its own problems. For instance, you can sometimes get progress in Africa through the Organisation of African Unity which you cannot get through a European or United Nations approach. It is possible that the meeting in Indonesia will point the way towards something Asian into which the rest of us could join at a moment of appropriate timing. One cannot be sure, but it is quite a possibility. But here again we come to these very difficult questions of American policy, because, as one noble Lord suggested, if the American position collapses too soon, then the Asians are bound to look elsewhere, to where the real, nearby power is. So that again, if we try to be too moral about individual American actions, we may in fact wreck the chances of a power balance which could be the way in to a South-East Asian peace.
I also agree that the Americans have not done everything right, and I would add as one of the extraordinary misjudgments the first bombing of Hanoi in the presence of no less than Mr. Kosygin. There have been these hideous errors of judgment; but at this present time I join with other noble Lords in sympathising with the United States in their present agonising situation and in hoping that they will be able to escape from it with an exit from Vietnam, but one which can at least in form and degree unite them. I am quite sure that Her Majesty's Government, in abstaining from rushing into condemnation, can continue to be of help, not only to them but also towards peace in the area.
7.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, it is always a formidable task to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, who speaks with such immense authority and long knowledge of many aspects—indeed of almost all aspects—of diplomacy. I should like to say how glad I am that he talked about the neutrality of Cambodia. When the charges were first made
792
about troops from North Vietnam being in Cambodia, I had the opportunity of travelling from Saigon to Phnom Penh. I made fairly full inquiries as to whether those charges were true. I am confident that at that time (and this was five or six, or perhaps seven, years ago) it was not true. I am satisfied that Prince Sihanouk himself would never voluntarily have allowed Vietnamese or Communist forces or, indeed, for that matter, the Communist Party to be in his State at all. In that sense, I believe he was fulfilling his task of heading a neutral State as completely as he could within his power. He said: "I have this great neighbour, China, on the one side, and possibly the Americans on the other. What would you do?". I believe that he pursued a policy which was as sensible for his country as it possibly could be.
I do not differ in general from what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, but I have some doubt how far to-day anyone is going to assume that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in South-East Asia is very serious; whether they are really going to take a great interest in that part of the world. We had a debate yesterday on Defence. Neither of the statements from the Government made the slightest reference to the warlike activities in either Southwest Asia or South-East Asia. Your Lordships may remember that well-known statement in the Defence Paper of 1966:
"It is in the Far East and Southern Asia that the greatest danger to peace may lie in the next decade and some of our partners in the Commonwealth may well be directly threatened."
Those words have never been copied; in fact, their obvious omission must be evident to anyone who wishes to see.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl is being a little unfair. It is not surprising that we did not discuss operations and policy in South-East Asia in the debate yesterday when we were going to be debating South-East Asia to-day.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I appreciate that; but, none the less, it was, strictly speaking, a Defence debate; while to-day it is not a Defence debate; and many speakers referred to some of these problems.

793
1 think our attitude towards Southern Asia—with which we have not had much to do and which is a long way away—is understandable; but it is proper to remember that Indo-China, South-East Asia, is the centre of the world population. Within something like 2,000 or 3,000 miles of the middle of Indo-China lies half the population of the world. They are among the most intelligent and energetic people of the world and they are a people with a very long tradition of civilisation and indeed of the rise and fall of civilisation, which happens from time to time in their area. It is a place where probably nobody under the age of 50 remembers a time when war was not taking place.
I do not think we disagree about the fact that we should like those countries to develop stable and strong Governments of their own which could give them the status of efficient nation-States. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, to say that they have been left alone. The development of the State is a very complex matter. It is much more than just ballot boxes and a mace and things like those. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, knows something about the educational requirements. There are a hundred-and-one other things required before a State can be built up to stand for anything in the world as it is to-day. There is really no alternative for this area. Either they are able to stand on their feet or they become satellites—satellites of some other big country. That is the central problem which we are trying to solve to-day. Not only were those countries seeking to form their own States and achieve independence, but there was a deliberate attempt by the Hanoi Government to undermine the Government of every one of them.
When I first went to Singapore in 1959 it was one of the first things that became known to us: that a decision had been taken in Hanoi to overturn the Government in Saigon. In the course of time, that has been extended to Laos and now further into Cambodia. I think there should be no illusions that this was a deliberate and calculated attempt by the Hanoi Government. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, made his comment on the Americans; but if he is going to be fair he should say that this was far
794
more initiated, directed and made inevitable by the action of the Hanoi Government. They have now reached the stage when two-thirds of Laos, about one-quarter of Cambodia and a rather indefined area of Vietnam have been taken over by the North Vietnam Government. This is not really a question of Communism; this is a question simply of imperialism. It is the imperialism of Hanoi, in the old sense of the word, which is being pushed at the present time.
I cannot see any point in dissociating ourselves from the Americans. I have been very worried ever since American troops went into the country in large numbers—anyone who knew the area would be—but no useful purpose is served by us, who are not concerned in this matter, saying that they are wrong in doing what the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, said was, tactically, probably essential. None of us knows the full details: but I should be surprised if it was not purely a question of the safety of their own troops that determined the action they took. They have probably taken certain steps to re-establish or do something towards re-establishing, I hope, the neutrality of Cambodia. The late Colonel Walter Elliot said that probably enough advice was being given to the Americans to run three worlds of equal size. One cannot blame them if sometimes they are a little indifferent to advice.
None the less I am going to make one suggestion. It is that I wish that the Americans could have a Presidential representative in Saigon; that the vital decisions affecting Saigon, Vietnam, Cambodia or elsewhere could be taken nearer the spot and not in Washington. In the present state of Washington, I should have thought it was a most undesirable atmosphere in which to take vital decisions affecting people miles away of an entirely different outlook and at a different stage of civilisation.
The second point I wish to make is in regard to a conference. I will not add anything to this. We have had an interesting suggestion from the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth. May I add one point? He spoke about the Asian approach. That is important. Practically every Asian views a Western or European Conference

795
with the utmost suspicion. They think: "These Westerners are clever chaps. Watch them. Don't let them get away with anything. They are always trying to trick you." Any approach to a conference must be studied with the fullest sense of confidence and reality. I do not know whether one could suggest other Chairmen. I am bound to say that I thought it very surprising that the Chinese would sit under a Russian Chairman at the present time. The French might provide a chairman: or the selection of the Prime Minister of Singapore—if you want a chairman from Asia—might prove another solution.
There is one other point I want to make. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, "If we could help in any way". There is one way in which we could help. We could see that the Southern flank of Indo-China remains firm and that we do nothing to weaken the position either of the people of Singapore or of Malaysia. I suggest that we should take no action whatsoever to weaken that position while the very dangerous situation in Indo-China is being overcome. If we weaken that position we shall endanger the situation, and a much wider and more important conflagration might develop.
My Lords, I would end by saying this. I realise, of course, how anxious we are not to get involved. We have often said that we have to take risks for peace. I believe that to-day our objective must be to prevent wars rather than to win them. Our anxiety to-day should be to prevent anything starting which we cannot stop. I do not believe that in future anyone will win a war anywhere. It is for that reason that I ask Her Majesty's Government to be careful not to give the impression that they are washing their hands of South-East Asia. This area is vital, and I beg them to read again the White Paper of 1966.
7.22 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I speak in this debate only because recently I was in the war zone in South Vietnam, with a Parliamentary colleague from the Benches opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I consider that the charge that the United States has escalated the war into a new area is a bit far-fetched and the negation of the truth. As could be
796
foreseen by anyone who had been there, because of the infiltration of the Viet Cong from Cambodia into South Vietnam, which has been going on now since the Tet offensive in 1968, it was obvious that some day America would have to take action against the Viet Cong operating against them from Cambodia. I am surprised at American tolerance over so many years. It was from Cambodia and from Laos that the Tet offensive was conducted against the South Vietnamese forces and the Americans in 1968; and it is an indisputable fact that Cambodia territory has been used by the Viet Cong and the Hanoi Vietnamese for attacks on American forces, and for the killing of American soldiers.
My Lords, why should America alone be denied the right to hit back against an enemy who has been hitting them for over two and a half years from supposed neutral countries? Why should the Americans be expected to allow mounting casualties to be inflicted by an enemy who could always get over the border into a sanctuary in which they were protected from attack? The Americans have gone into Cambodia to protect themselves against those who were operating from there and, having seen the area, it seems to me that they have done a sensible thing. President Nixon's decision to send his troops into Cambodia was obviously a very difficult one for him to make. Life is not easy in South Vietnam. There are Communists in South Vietnam who are farmers or workers by day and Viet Cong soldiers by night. You never know who is your friend or who is your foe. On top of this there is the infiltration from Cambodia of Viet Cong soldiers heavily armed, supported by their friends inside Vietnam, which has caused hundreds of American casualties in South Vietnam.
My Lords, the Americans are not there for a war of conquest or subjugation. They are there in the noble belief that it was their duty to help countries to avoid subjugation and choose their own Government. The declared policy of America has been to create a situation in South Vietnam in which the people could choose for themselves. Some may think this an arrogant belief, but surely it cannot be regarded as an ignoble one: and it does not make sense to suggest that the Americans want a long-term military

797
involvement in Indo-China. President Nixon wants to get out on honourable terms. He has committed himself to pulling out 150,000 more men by next spring—which means that by then his forces in Vietnam will have been cut by nearly half—and he wants to honour the undertaking that he gave to the Americans last year. He has described his involvement in Cambodia as having been forced upon him by the refusal of the other side to join in negotiations, and he has said that it is a short-term operation.
It is generally believed that the undertaking reached between the Americans and the Hanoi Vietnamese, when President Johnson stopped all bombing in North Vietnam, included a condition that major infiltration across the 17th Parallel Line from the North would stop. But Hanoi has got round that by using the "back door" through Laos, by using what are known as the Ho Chi Minh trails: and through Cambodia by the Sihanouk trails, and that is where the infiltration is now. The fact that the presence of the Communists is completely unwelcome to the people of Laos and Cambodia does not worry the Communists. The Hanoi Vietnamese and Viet Cong activities in Cambodia were in effect condoned under Prince Sihanouk, though from time to time he publicly condemned them. Perhaps he felt that he could do nothing about it. But the result for the Americans was that the other side had a haven and a safe supply line just across the border into South Vietnam. If the Communists had really respected Cambodian neutrality, President Nixon would not have been faced with the necessity to take the agonising decision that he has had to take.
I do not suggest, my Lords, that the South Vietnamese Government is perfect—far from it. But it was elected in free elections held throughout the greater part Of South Vietnam, in which more than half of those eligible to vote in fact voted; and at least that is more than may be said for the Government in Hanoi. It is said that America's action makes an honourable settlement more remote. Surely this is a matter for judgment, and no one can say what the result will be. What we do know is that negotiations in Paris have been bogged down for two years because of the North Vietnamese
798
insistence on two unrealistic pre-conditions for serious talks. One is that the Americans should leave Vietnam before there is any political settlement. The second is that the South Vietnamese Government should be replaced by a coalition Government before elections have been held to ascertain the people's wishes, and the South Vietnamese Government itself would not be allowed to take part in this coalition. These conditions were impossible, especially when it is remembered what the North Vietnamese did to the local people during their brief control of Hué during the Tet offensive of 1968. What they did here suggests that if they do get their way in the South, people who do not share their political views are likely to have a rough time.
During the past two years the Americans, in an effort to get negotiations going, have made a series of offers. None has been met with any response. During this time our own Government, and others, have urged the North Vietnamese and their friends to recognise that if they would not negotiate the war would continue indefinitely, and possibly with increasing intensity. Surely it is their responsibility that this is now happening. At the same time, President Nixon has made it clear that this need not continue, and that he would still prefer negotiations to end the war.
The Communists of Vietnam have followed the line that if they insist on something long enough the other side will give way, because they want to make progress and they hope that by conceding Hanoi's demands the way will be open for this. When the Americans stopped the bombing they believed that in return there would be real talks in Paris. In practice, this did not happen. All that happened was that the North Vietnamese presented some more essential demands, implying that once these, in turn, were conceded the way would be open to a settlement. All the gestures for peace and a settlement have so far come from the South Vietnamese and the American side.
Yet, despile all the difficulties, President Nixon is going ahead with withdrawing troops from South Vietnam, while the Communists do not even officially admit that they are there—and they are there in thousands. The Viet Cong attach a great deal of importance to opinion in

799
the United States and in third countries. The fervent hope is that this will yet force President Nixon to throw in his hand. I would say to those who demonstrated last week in London that, before condemning the President's latest decisions, we should remember that the result of doing so will be to encourage Hanoi in their belief that they only have to stick out and keep the war going long enough to get all their demands in their entirety.
My Lords, do not believe the Viet Cong myth that the great majority of South Vietnamese would willingly see a Communist takeover if it meant the end of the war. The South Vietnamese Government told us last year that they are going to spend 80 per cent. of their budget on defence, and they expect to have one million men under arms when the Americans withdraw their troops. Of course there are Communist among the people in South Vietnam, but there is no evidence that they represent the majority of the people, or anything like it.
America has stated clearly that as part of a final agreed settlement there would be complete withdrawal of United States troops from South Vietnam. I do not think it right for us to make a judgment on a military decision which belongs to a Power which is engaged in that area, particularly in the circumstances that I have tried to describe. For 25 years Europe has been free from war, and this is due to the solidarity of NATO. If it is once thought that America could not in all circumstances be relied upon to stand by her Allies and see it through, the deterrent Power of NATO would be gravely weakened and the security of the free world would be endangered.
I have spoken as I have to-day because the Americans are not out there to conquer Vietnam; that has never been their aim. I know that passions can be roused on this subject. Some of us have seen the horror in Vietnam. I saw the devastation in Hué by the Tet offensive; I went to the Mekong Delta and saw the horror and awful conditions there. I am all in favour of the sovereignty of South Vietnam, but that does not mean that I who take this view am in favour of horror and war. The ability to achieve peace rests in many places. The initiative for peace does not lie only with
800
America, but with the Governments of Hanoi, Russia, China and the United Nations. There has been a lot of progress in the Paris Talks in the last two years, and not many words have been uttered by supporters of the Viet Cong about the steady infiltration into neutral Cambodia and Laos, which has now been a compelling factor in the President's decision.
The only hope that I see is for a negotiated settlement—because there can be no military victory; and the only way this ghastly war can be brought to an end is by achieving a negotiated settlement at the conference table in Paris. My own Government over the last two years have done splendid work in trying to bring about a settlement. Though they have failed to do so, this does not detract in any way from the thanks that we owe them for trying.
On the military questions in Vietnam no decision can be made by this House, though what is happening will continue to be a matter of apprehension and anxiety to us all. I hope that the five points outlined by the Prime Minister at the end of the debate last week will be the basis of a policy that Governments of the world can pursue to see whether we can get peace in this troubled area. I believe that America could accept these five points. In conclusion, I believe that the whole Free World needs a strong, healthy and united America, and I hope that no comments of ours will make it harder to achieve that unity.
7.38 p.m.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, as an ex-diplomat may I, with respect, say how rewarding it has been to listen to a debate in which Government and Opposition have been able to speak with the same voice on behalf of Britain in an area of vital importance, and perhaps all the more so because there are signs that mayhem may break forth on other fronts shortly. Secondly, I should like to say what a privilege it is, as the noble Lord. Lord Gore-Booth, said, to speak after the noble Earl, Lord Avon, whose henchman I was, at home and abroad, for many years. Indeed, if I have any right to intervene in this debate, it is because I was his principal adviser and official at the Geneva Conference in 1954, and later was Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office during the 1962 Laos Conference.

801
The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has spoken to your Lordships about the more recent history and that is more relevant to this evening's debate. Yet against a longer background in this long-drawn-out tragedy there may still be one or two things which could be said with advantage or emphasised. I say "emphasised" because two points to which I am going to refer have already been mentioned, either directly or by inference.
The first is that if we are to be helpful, and Britain is to have some part in this, we shall be unlikely to do that by public condemnation and moralising. Indeed, quite the contrary will be the likely result. The second point that I would emphasise from the longer past is that it would be extremely imprudent to be at all certain how things are likely to turn out militarily, or in any other way, in South-East Asia. Looking back to that Geneva Conference of 1954, I would say that if anybody there, on either side had been asked whether there was likely to be 15 years thereafter such independence as still exists in the States of South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, he would have been extremely doubtful. I do not know whether the surprise at the degree of success of that Conference in retaining the independence of these three States is greater on the side of the Soviet Union, China and North Vietnam than it would be among the still surviving participants on the Western side, be they British, French or American. Therefore, I would urge strongly that no one should conclude now that he necessarily knows what the results of military operations will be, even if the Americans carry out—as I sincerely hope they will—the policy to which they have set their hand: gradual withdrawal and, in the meantime, Vietnamisation.
In 1958—to give another such example of uncertainties—the Chinese made their last determined attempt, up to date, to get hold of the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu. These are so close to the China coast that you could almost play ducks and drakes to get a stone from the mainland to the islands. The Chinese did not succeed in their attempt in 1958, and they have not since renewed such an effort; and, as I understand it, the American Navy no longer thinks it necessary even to patrol the Taiwan Straits. I say this only to suggest that it is just possible that even when the
802
Americans have withdrawn and there has been Vietnamisation, that will not necessarily mean the total cessation of an independent State in South Vietnam.
If we are now in the process rather of looking forward than looking backward to what has happened in the past, and condemning the one side or the other for more of this or more of that, we must ask ourselves, as previous speakers have done, "look forward to what?". It you ask that question, it would be sad simply to answer, "There is nothing more that anybody can do. The best hope is that the Americans will carry out their policy of Vietnamisation and withdrawal in such an orderly manner as to give the stay-behind South Vietnam Government a chance of survival, and then this ghastly killing will just proceed until one side or the other triumphs or, alternatively, both are exhausted." The British Government, as they have made plain this afternoon, have no intention whatever of just letting that happen. If they are not to let that happen, I hope that they will think over very carefully what the noble Earl, Lord Avon, suggested about the difficulties of calling together a full-scale conference for the purpose of getting an arrangement. I would not begin to use such a big word as "settlement": that is probably long beyond any present hope. I would say rather an arrangement which might perhaps last, as the noble Earl, said for a ten-year period. That already would be a great achievement.
Are there means of doing this other than by trying to get a conference of the participants in Paris, such as the Americans have been involved in, or by getting together, or trying to get together, again a Geneva-type conference? I sincerely hope that there are, because we have seen in Paris that face to face the North Vietnamese are not yet ready to do business. It is just a spending of time. Nor does it look as if there is very much hope between American contacts with the Chinese in Warsaw recently starting up once more.
Does this mean that everything is hopeless? As the noble Earl, Lord Avon, suggested, perhaps not. In the case of Trieste, for instance, it was possible to have a long-drawn-out secret negotiation in which neither of the main participants met until, through intermediaries, an

803
arrangement had been virtually completed. But who could these intermediaries be? The noble Earl suggested that it might be the French, who have contacts in Hanoi, and ourselves. That is one possibility. The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has suggested—and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has supported the idea—that it might be of advantage to bring in some Asiatic Power. This may be an alternative, and at least it offers some way in which contacts could be created between the North Vietnamese, the Americans and the South Vietnamese, without either of them having to meet fruitlessly in Paris or without having to try to get together a formal Geneva Conference again.
On that I should have thought the prospects would be gloomy. I gather from what the Government spokesman has said that there has been no response at all from the Russians to this recently. This has been a steady Russian position for some considerable time, despite a remark thrown out a few weeks ago. Mr. Khrushchev, for instance, in the brutal way that he used to express himself, told the Foreign Secretary of the day, when he visited Moscow in 1964, that if the British wanted to hang themselves up on the meat hook of South-East Asia, the Russians were not the least inclined to follow suit. Therefore I doubt whether we can hope for much from the Russians.
This brings me back to express the hope that the Government, following every possible means of trying to get an arrangement of some kind, will bear in mind the suggestion thrown out by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, and by other noble Lords that they will continue in the work to which they have set their hands, and will not tire in trying to reach some accommodation, thereby stopping the bloodshed that continues and will continue until, if these efforts are not successful, one side or the other is beaten into defeat, or both sides are so war-weary that they have to call a halt. In that case my fear would be that they would be calling a halt only in order to go at each other again as soon as they had got their breath back.
7.49 p.m.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I feel that I have some small contribution to
804
make to this debate, since like the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, who addressed your Lordships a few moments ago, I was in Vietnam last September and had the opportunity to meet the Vietnamese leaders and talk with officers of the South Vietnamese Army. I should like to give my reasons why I feel that the decision of President Nixon was, by and large, right, and why I see nothing inconsistent at all in his decision to go into Cambodia, into the Parrot's Beak, and his declared policy of gradual withdrawal from South Vietnam. It must surely be unprecedented for a country to tolerate, 50 miles from its capital city, a hostile base which has been used for years and years for assaults, for rest and recuperation, for supplies to a numerous enemy which has the avowed intention of the destruction of Vietnam. It must also surely be unprecedented for a great and powerful country such as the United States to tie its hands so tightly and to announce its intentions so strictly before embarking on a major military operation.
The President has been pinned down by his public opinion at home to only a few days of operation in Cambodia. He has been forced to declare that he will end his combat activity in that country by the end of June. And two days ago I heard that his Secretary of Defence had again pinned him down by saying that American troops will not go back into Cambodia. He did not say, "No matter what happens"—but I think it follows that whatever happens American troops will not go back into Cambodia.
This is really a very novel type of warfare, and I think it both explains and justifies a lot of American actions and redounds tremendously to their credit if they are successful—and I have a strong suspicion that this Vietnamisation policy will succeed. If, by the end of 1971, the Americans manage to pull out of South-East Asia leaving a viable country, not having defeated the Viet Cong but still leaving the country intact, it will not be a defeat but will, I suggest, be a considerable victory.
There are many people who claim that the Americans have lost the war since they have not been able to defeat the Viet Cong. That is really very far from the truth. There have been certain tendencies to compare unfavourably the American record in Vietnam with our

805
record in Malaya, where we won; but surely the differences are immense. In Malaya we eventually defeated a force of about 10,000 Communist terrorists. For each Communist terrorist we eliminated it took a million man-hours. We won this war only because we had the full support of the Malayan population to whom we had promised independence. We had really a pretty easy ride.
On the other hand, the Americans have to cope with 200,000 armed terrorists, very well supplied through neutral territory by two super-Powers. How could they possibly manage to eliminate 200,000 terrorists, even with a total allied force of 1½ million? It takes a whole police force to catch a gang of train robbers and to catch an escaped prisoner—200,000 people hidden in the jungle, well armed, cannot be defeated. I see it as no reflection on the American military record that they have been unable to defeat the Viet Cong; but I do have two small doubts about what President Nixon has done, and I should like to mention them.
The first is—and I hope I am not wrong—that it has been suggested to me that although President Nixon has undertaken to withdraw his own troops from Cambodia by the end of June, no such undertaking has been given for the South Vietnamese troops. It could happen that South Vietnamese troops will remain in Cambodia after the Americans have withdrawn, and naturally they will be supplied and equipped by the Americans. This may be a valid military decision to take, but it would be a mistake, I suggest, if these South Vietnamese regular soldiers were allowed to stay indefinitely in Cambodia as a force in the internal situation of that country. We know that the present Government has only recently come to power and is not particularly secure. There is a strong challenge from the ex-leader, Sihanouk, and it could happen that the new régime would be challenged. If American-backed South Vietnamese regular soldiers become involved in such an internal struggle for power this would be a very dangerous step, and I hope it does not happen.
My second worry is: what will happen if Vietnamisation does not succeed? I think we have to envisage this possibility. I hope and, on balance, I believe it will
806
succeed; but it is possible that it will fail There seems to be a rather sweeping assumption that if the Americans withdraw the North will simply sweep across South Vietnam and crush it. I see no reason at all why that should happen The South Vietnamese Army consists of nearly a million men: the Viet Cong of about 200,000. Of course, the Viet Cong can get the upper hand in guerrilla warfare, but I do not think they can sweep across the country and annihilate the Saigon régime. It is a different sort of fighting which leads to the conquering of major cities and the assumption of political power.
What is much more likely to happen is that the Viet Cong will make the Government of South Vietnam insecure. They may be able to restrict the Saigon Government and the people under its control to a very small area with a few cities, and to continue with their noxious policy of terror over the waverers. If this continues, I see a considerable amount of danger, and I believe that we and the Americans should discuss what will happen if Vietnamisation does not succeed, or if the Government of South Vietnam survives but seems to be slowly crumbling away, being slowly eroded or terrorised away. We should discuss what could be done in such a situation.
When I was speaking to South Vietnamese parliamentarians and political leaders last September, I was rather amazed at the breadth of political view that I found. Having read our Press, I had been rather led into the assumption that the leaders of South Vietnam were a group of corrupt mandarins with vast bank accounts in Zurich who were only waiting for the firing of the starting gun to catch the first plane out. Instead, I found a very wide range—even one or two Socialists of long standing.
LORD ST. OSWALD: There are not many of them here now.
LORD BETHELL: On one thing they were united: their view of Communism was a very violent one. To paraphrase it—and I am speaking not only of military leaders but also of army officers, of shopkeepers and of other people we spoke to—they said that Communists in Asia were not similar in character to the noble Lord who will be addressing this House after I resume my seat. I

807
was told that these Communists kill. These are the sort of Communists we have to cope with in Asia, and they are not the gentle, intellectual Communists that I, at least, meet and occasionally lunch with. So this is the situation which may become a terrible worry, not now, but in two years' time when the Americans have withdrawn and we are faced with a disintegrating and potentially bloody situation.
What the Government can do then or in the meantime is very little. I even heard one noble Lord say earlier during this debate that he saw no point in speaking in it at all because there was nothing anyone in this country could do. While admitting there is little anyone here can do, I still say that something can be done. I feel that that noble Lord would not have spoken as he did if he had visited the British Children's Hospital in Saigon, which we did. It is financed out of British Government aid, it turns no child away, it looks after many hundreds of Vietnamese children who have been terribly injured in this war and it depends on us for its survival. I suggest that this, possibly combined with an influx of young people in Voluntary Service Overseas, might well make a realistic and useful contribution to the situation in South Vietnam. Saigon is not a dangerous place—far less dangerous than New York. It is quite safe to live there, and I see no reason why young people from this country should not go out there to work and provide medical assistance.
There is another completely different point which I should like to mention and bring to the Government's attention. It may seem distasteful but it is an unquestionable fact that defence experts, both in America and here, are gaining a lot out of this war. A great deal of tremendously useful defence information is coming out of Vietnam, and any American senior officer would, I think, be pleased to have the war continued for a little longer. Certainly that is something we have to fight against, but while the war continues I see no reason why we should not get what we can in the military and defence field out of it. The service attachés in our Embassy are well trusted by the Americans, but their movements are somewhat restricted by,
808
I believe, instructions of a political nature from Whitehall. It is felt unwise that they should go along on military exercises or military operations with the Americans or the South Vietnamese; it is thought to be politically inadvisable. That is surely a piece of hypocrisy. We know which side we are on and there can be no reason why Service attachés should not, in a passive, observer capacity, find out what is happening in the war.
The main course the Government can pursue is to continue their efforts with the Russians and, as the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said earlier this afternoon, with the French. That must be our role, and my only hope is that the Government will not be put off by face slaps, by half promises which are retracted a week later, by the Russians' difficult situation, by the fact that they at present have little influence with North Vietnam and less with China; but that the Government will persist and carry on until this war is over.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he could tell the House what is happening about the Australian and Empire troops who are fighting with the South Vietnamese? Are they going to be withdrawn in proportion with the American withdrawal, or not?
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I feel that that is hardly a question for me but rather a question for the Australian High Commissioner.
8.5 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, many speakers have spoken about Vietnam, the Americans, President Nixon. I do not want to continue on that note at all. My aim is to examine this war to see how we can avoid its ever happening again. These countries of South-East Asia are very ancient civilisations, far older than most European civilisations, but they fell into stagnation under a rigid feudal system and were colonised by the West. When the last World War broke out the colonisers were defeated. Japan swept in, and Japan was defeated; and the French colonisers tried to come back again. If one were a Vietnamese and had seen all this happen, it would be natural for one's patriotism to be

809
aroused; one would want to get rid of colonialism for ever and would be against a feudal society which had even collaborated with the invaders. So there was after the war a tremendous surge of patriotism and liberation; a feeling of, "Let's get rid of the feudal system, once and for all, and go forward into a more modern world." That is what really started the whole trouble in South-East Asia.
The resistance movement against the French and the Japanese, and the French again, was a broad, popular movement. Yes, there were Communists in it—of course there were—but it was a broad, popular movement. It was not quite the subversive picture which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, painted. He spoke to-day very much about subversion, in a rather poisonous way. That broad movement hated the feudal, corrupt Governments of the Diems, Madam Diem, the Syngman Rhees and all those people. Does a movement have to be subversive because it wants to overthrow these feudal systems and go forward?
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? Is it not a fact that what that part of the world is threatened with now is Chinese imperialism, and although colonialism was done away with in that area another imperialism is going on? Is that not what has happened?
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord at all. I think that this is a real, patriotic liberation movement. I urge that all such movements throughout the world should be understood. More and more of them are coming and I hope that our Governments, of whatever colour, and the Western world, will in future help countries with these patriotic liberation movements to get on their own feet, and will not just smear them as subversive Communists, and so on. They are people wanting to come forward into the modern world.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, himself said that developing countries must be helped and will be helped. I welcome that statement very much indeed. But when one is trying to help a backward country always the problem comes up: what kind of Government has the country got, or is it going to have? It is
810
only natural that people do not want to invest money in a country which is in a state of flux. Investors and financiers and the so-called helpers want to see a safe Government before they send their money in. Up to now that has always meant the Government of the status quo, or even more reactionary than the status quo. Any country that is in a flux and wanting to go forward—even having a revolution, perhaps—I am sure will not get the aid that a so-called safe country would get. In Vietnam they had a civil war—a civil war to get rid of feudalism, on one side, and, on the other, to try to keep the status quo. Why have we to interfere in a civil war to get rid of feudalism? We had a civil war in our country to get rid of our feudalism, and we got rid of it. So I say, "Good luck to them in getting rid of their feudalism!"
I ask the question, my Lords, what is the way out for a backward feudal country to come forward into the modern world without a great deal of strife, and perhaps a civil war? And are we and the Western World always going to stamp down on that civil war and be on the side of the status quo? It seems that is what modern history is all over the world. This situation may arise, perhaps in South America to-morrow, or somewhere else. If it does are we always going to take the side of reaction? I hope not. I am worried about one thing in regard to what is happening in Vietnam. There has been a very efficient, modern, well-equipped army formed in the South of Vietnam under Vietnamisation. This will be one of the most powerful armies in South-East Asia and the people behind it are not conspicuous for their democracy or their outlook for the future—what they want. I think that unless somehow we have control in the future over this army it may be a very dangerous thing that has arisen in South-East Asia.
8.13 p.m.
LORD MONSON: My Lords, I think it is time that the sincere and well-meaning opponents of the American presence in Indo-China were made to realise the full consequences of what they are now calling for. If it were possible to spirit the entire American Army out of Vietnam and Cambodia tomorrow by waving a magic wand, there would be absolutely no question of the "peace in Vietnam" that they have been crying for. Quite the

811
opposite. Instead, we should see bloodshed and terror on a scale exceeding anything that has gone before. To be accurate, we ourselves should probably not see it, given that the colour television cameras which dwell so lingeringly upon the misdeeds perpetrated by the allied side, to the virtual exclusion of those committed by the enemy, would tend to be withdrawn at the same time as the American Forces. So all those who are urging a precipitate American withdrawal would be spared the sight of the horror that such a withdrawal would unleash.
As the leading article in last Sunday's Observer puts it:
"It is arguable … that the best thing now would be for the U.S. to get out as quickly as possible. If this is true, it has also to be recognised—as few of Mr. Nixon's critics are willing to do—that the result must mean abandoning the anti-Communists in South Vietnam to their fate."
It goes on to say:
"They may not all be massacred "—
which is some consolation, I suppose. My Lords, I hope most of us would agree that the motives for the original American intervention were essentially altruistic, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has mentioned, whatever objection there might or might not be on practical grounds. Essentially it was all part and parcel of the late President Kennedy's pledge, which I shall have to paraphrase as I cannot remember the exact words. It was to the effect that: "We shall defend the cause of freedom wherever in the world it may be threatened". Certainly there may have been subsidiary and less altruistic reasons involving prestige and an abstract desire to keep Red China in her place, but basically the motives were noble ones. America, after all, stood to gain nothing in the material sense; on the other hand, she stood to lose quite a lot in terms of lives and money, even if the American intervention had gone according to plan.
Having established this, one cannot deny that many errors of judgment appear to have been made in the actual conduct of the war on the allied side, chiefly by the Americans—excessive use of fire power and over-reliance on bombing, causing unnecessary civilian casualties; the policy of defoliation and the like—but opponents of the American
812
presence ought to realise that none of these faults in American strategy and tactics were inherent in their original decision to aid South Vietnam. If the Americans had sought the advice at an earlier stage of Sir Robert Thompson, based on our own experience in Malaya; if they had emulated the example of their Australian and South Korean allies and fought more of an infantry war and less of a campaign based on the massive, and inevitably indiscriminate, use of fire power, we should have had less in the way of civilian casualties and material destruction on the one hand, and quite possibly greater military success, and certainly more long-term civilian cooperation, on the other. However, this is all past history and we have to deal with the situation as it exists at the moment.
Now, my Lords, what might be called the "peace at any price" lobby are citing the fact of this excessive destruction and the civilian casualties in support of their call for an immediate American withdrawal. Their supposition is that these events have altered the political sentiments of the South Vietnamese people to such an extent in recent years that, apart from a few allegedly corrupt politicians and army officers, virtually the entire South Vietnamese population would be happy to acquiesce in a Communist takeover, some of them enthusiastically and others with no more than mild grumbling. Peace and harmony, under a mild, Dubcek-like régime, would then prevail.
My Lords, I think this is an utterly false assumption. A few years ago, expert opinion estimated the political affinities of the South Vietnamese people to be divided in the following proportions: 15 per cent. convinced Communists; 15 per cent. strongly anti-Communist; and 70 per cent. non-Communist but essentially indifferent to politics provided that they were left to cultivate their land and get on with their businesses in peace. The first two groups are unlikely, given the course of the war, to have altered their opinions. So for a start we have a staunchly anti-Communist minority of 2½ million, who cannot all slink away to hide for the rest of their lives in the jungle, even if they were prepared to do so. But that is not all, because some of the 70 per cent. in the middle must have come

813
down off the fence. No doubt a few will have been driven into the Communist camp because of clumsy and un-selective use of fire power by some of the allied forces, but I suggest that; far more will have been driven in the other direction by systematic and deliberate Communist terrorism.
All of us, my Lords, are horrified by the incident at My Lai—this uncharacteristic aberration—and of course it is right that the fullest publicity should have been given to that incident and to any other crimes which may have been committed by our side—by "our side" I mean the Western side: but I think it would assist people to form a balanced and accurate appraisal of the Vietnamese situation if the various news media throughout the Western World would give proportionate space and time to the far more numerous Communist atrocities. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a few of the sordid details. By the end of 1964, according to Sir Robert Thompson, the Viet Cong were liquidating villagers loyal to the central Government at the rate of 6,000 a year. During 1965 and 1966 this terrorism spread into the towns and cities. Initially the murders were basically semi-political, with the victims lending to be in the category of village headmen, estate foremen, the wives and children of soldiers, and anyone else con nected with authority, however remotely. But this policy did not work; so the Communists started killing completely at random, in order to create an atmosphere of fear and panic. Bombs were planted in Saigon restaurants, in theatres (in one theatre incident, 108 people, including 24 women and children, were killed), in school playgrounds and even school bicycle sheds. Grenades were thrown into crowded country buses and at young people riding motor scooters—all the victims being people whom the Com munists were allegedly "liberating".
These attacks were stepped up during 1967 and reached their peak in the first week of December that year, when 252 Montagnard villagers at Dak Son were massacred with flame-throwers. That same week, incidentally, 118 civilians were murdered elsewhere in the country. The next year, 1968, started fairly quietly, with only a few score peasants being killed by bombs placed in Mekong Delta market places. Then came the Communist
814
occupation of Hué, which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton has mentioned. One Buddhist monk claimed that 8,000 people were executed by the Communists during their brief occupation. Nobody can yet verify the exact number, as mutilated bodies are still being dug out of mass graves. Subsequently, the Communists started firing rockets indiscriminately into Saigon—no question of military targets being involved—killing about 25 civilians a week, on average; and more recently there have been deliberate bomb attacks on children's hospitals. And this is not by any means the whole list, my Lords.
After so much truly Stalinist savagery, it would be astonishing if anti-Communism in South Vietnam was not stronger than ever. Remembering that, in addition to this, as many as 2 million people were said to have been killed in North Vietnam after Ho Chi Minh came to power, one can imagine how the declared anti-Communists must feel about the prospects of the United States Government being panicked by the abuse hurled at them from all sides into withdrawing from Vietnam before they (the anti-Communists) had been fully armed and trained to defend themselves, not only against the indigenous South Vietnamese Communists, who of course form a relatively small part of the population, but against the full might of the North Vietnamese Army. To give an idea of the dangers, which although they are fully appreciated in this House I do not think are appreciated in the country at large, the population of South Vietnam is about 16½ million, and even if the declared anti-Communists still number no more than 15 per cent. of the whole, there must be 2½ million of them. The population of Israel is 2,770,000, about 90 per cent. of which is represented by the Jewish community, who therefore also number about 2½ million. Contemplate the terrible consequences if Israel had been overrun by the Arab Armies in June, 1967, and one begins to get an idea of which could happen in Vietnam.
Another, and supposedly slightly more humane, suggestion is that the Americans should delay their departure by just long enough to impose a coalition Government upon the South Vietnamese, with the idea that passions will abate somewhat before the inevitable Communist takeover in a

815
year or two's time. I doubt whether that would produce the desired outcome. In the Czechoslovakian elections of May, 1946, rigged as they were, the Communists managed to get only 38·1 per cent. of the vote. A coalition Government was therefore formed under the premiership of Gottwald. Within 21 months the Communists had infiltrated the police force and staged a coup d'état; a month later Jan Masaryk was dead and Czechoslovakia became subjected to the full rigours of Stalinism. In the Vietnamese context at this particular time I do not think an imposed coalition would last two months, let alone 21; and I believe that the ensuing deaths would not be numbered in hundreds, as in Czechoslovakia, but in hundreds of thousands.
If it were simply a question of the South Vietnamese facing the prospect of a tyrannical but relatively non-bloodthirsty Communist régime, like the majority of those in Eastern Europe to-day, the Americans would have every moral right, if the Senate and Congress so decided, to say to the South Vietnamese, "We are sorry, but we do not feel we can protect you any longer. Your freedom has to be weighed against the continuing loss of life of our sons and husbands and brothers and the appalling drain on our economy. We have done our best, but it has not worked, and now we have to say goodbye", and with those words remove themselves from Vietnam as fast as they could.
But it is not like that. The situation is that large numbers of people, who have been encouraged to come out openly and to take the risk of committing themselves publicly on the side of the free world, are not just facing a police state or enslavement but are literally in mortal danger. If the United States were to abandon these people without warning, she would place herself, to use another analogy from the 1940s, in the same moral position as the Russians, who, at the beginning of August, 1944, specifically called upon the people of Warsaw to rise against the Nazis, and then stood by in the Warsaw suburbs for two months while 240,000 Poles were killed and Warsaw razed to the ground. Thank goodness! I am fairly confident that the United States, when it comes to the
816
crunch, would never let her allies down, however bored they may have become with them, in this particular way.
Unlike many experienced noble Lords who have spoken, I have no particular qualifications for suggesting a solution, but I take note of the well-known Asian Communist saying, "Power flows out of the barrel of a gun". Paradoxical it may be, but I am convinced that it is only if both sides possess an equal number of guns, to put it at its simplest, and an equal number of men trained to use them, that you are going to get—bearing in mind this saying—a genuine balance of power in Vietnam, and with the balance of power a genuine prospect of peace. When both war-weary sides realise that neither can dominate or exterminate the other without many years more of bitter fighting, then I believe you will get, if not a happy and equally balanced coalition, at least a modus vivendi which rules out genocide and will allow for the gradual restoration of the economy. For that reason, I fervently hope that the Americans will not be browbeaten into getting out of Vietnam before the year or so which it will take to train and equip the allies they are leaving behind has been allowed to run its full course.
8.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with the permanent Left "scrubbed" in the form of Lord Brockway, the temporary Left is left high and dry. I feel like an allegorical emblem of isolation, the Ancient Mariner or the man who gave instructions for the charge of the Light Brigade, because seldom since I have been in your Lordships' House have I heard such a magnificent example of the politics of consensus. I am a little alarmed when I recall my own years in America and what happened to an earlier politics of consensus there. I will not attempt to make debating points. I would just say that the small doubts of my noble friend Lord Bethell are my large doubts.
I believe Mr. Nixon when he says that he is going to withdraw from Cambodia. I think it may be extremely dangerous to leave a South Vietnamese force in there, for obvious historical and local reasons. I am glad Malaya was mentioned and the important point made that there the British, at considerable cost, did have the

817
support of the local population. That has not been true of America. My burden is very simply this: I do not believe that the health of NATO or the future security of Europe depends on a perpetual and self-perpetuating uncritical support for the senior partner of the alliance, or for the wealthiest member.
In introducing to-day's debate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, wisely reminded us that foreign affairs generate heat and strong feeling. As a teacher, I feel especially strongly about the Vietnam war because two pupils of mine whom I liked and admired were killed on duty there. Their deaths were especially poignant because both entirely disapproved of the policies behind their own country's commitment. They felt equally strongly, however, that there are times when dissent can be a luxury rather than a right, and so they refused to take the many opportunities open to them to "dodge the draft". I am also, by the way, perhaps the only Member of your Lordships' House who has been investigated by the F.B.I. for suspected draft evasion. In the end, I was also suspected of being too old, too married, too academic and too English for the war, and so let off.
But I am not on the list of speakers in order to air feelings necessarily subjective and unhelpful. I want to be as brief and precise as possible, because we are all waiting for the end. Last week, after kindly allowing a Private Notice Question which he was understandably uneager to have to deal with, the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that we should have to await the debate in another place on President Nixon's intervention in Cambodia to find out the Government's attitude to it. Since then we have heard, or read, some of the Foreign Secretary's remarks on May 5, and marvelled at the intricacy of the Prime Minister's counter harmonies. If only that virtuosity could be applied to the form of issues and not to their appearance!
We had a very full debate here yesterday on Defence, and we have had to-day what we must face as being the luxury of debating the war's extension—luxury because even the most distinguished among us can hardly suppose that anyone is going to pay a great deal of attention. England, we hear it argued,
818
is fortunate to be on the sidelines of this particular foreign affair: let her not abuse her own luck and the misfortunates of her most important ally by indulging in recriminations which are liable to be abstract and ill-informed and which will, in any case, have no effect on events as they turn out.
The only reason why I want to take up your Lordships' time for a few minutes is that I believe that this line of thinking is not only fallacious in its own right but is dangerous to the improvement of this country's relations with other Powers. What I want to add to our discussion is this. The two major political Parties in this country have, in my view, a curious attitude to the problems of conducting military alliances in the post-nuclear world. They seem to believe that all a Power of the second rank—I intend this in no way as a description of value; I mean second in terms of manpower, gross national product, resources available, and so on—can do is to attach itself to one or other of the great nuclear Powers, back its policies morally to the hilt, and materially as far up the sword as you dare, and then hope for the best.
That seems to me to be a policy of "shut your eyes and think of America", to adapt the advice which Major Thompson's mother-in-law gave to his wife. Thus, we have the extraordinary spectacle of the leaders of a Socialist Government and the leaders of an Opposition whose whole point, as I see it, is to blend a traditional and still vibrant patriotism with the challenge and excitement of the Continental venture, permanently lending support to American Asiatic policies. I know that there are the Prime Minister's "buts", but I think we all know for whose ears they were intended.
We also, almost without a murmur, support policies which, to put it mildly, not only cause misgiving to almost every intellect of consequence in America, to almost every political scientist of international standing there, but which also are proving to be the most fertile seeding ground imaginable on anarchic and irresponsible dissent of the sort that my own students would have no truck with. Do noble Lords of both Benches really believe that America has no friends on this side of the Atlantic except noble

819
Lords and right honourable gentlemen? Does the less than ecstatic support from Italy, France, West Germany and Sweden token the "growing division between the United States and the Western World" which worried Mr. Maudling in the Commons last week? Is it not that these European countries, as well as being more alive to the standing of the affluent West in the Third World (you cannot get away from the fact that in Indo-China a very rich country is causing the greatest damage and disruption to the peasant populations of two very poor ones) are also, in their different ways, alive to the fact that the future of Western Europe's relations with the countries of the Warsaw Pact lies with Western Europe herself, and that a too great reliance on America can be as dangerous as a too great separation from her? Moscow is a fact of Europe; Marxism, and Leninism are Europeanisms. When these "Marx Brothers" go East they change their spots, as your Lordships hardly need me to remind you after the acute and authoritative speech of the noble Earl, Lord Avon.
I do so regret that my noble friends, whose Leader in another place is a true European, appear to have visions of snow-on-boots at the least suggestion that NATO be itself an organism capable of flexible response. By that I mean of response to a Power bloc whose policies, however out of line with our ideals or those of America, are surely not comparable to Fascism and do not present such easy analogies to yesterday's diplomacy.
I am not, to lapse into the patois of the 'fifties, trying to be "soft" on Communism; rather I am speaking in the deepest protest at the idea that the best way to oppose Russian Communism in Western Europe is to support American attempts to discourage Chinese-style competing Communist nationalisms in the Far East. Sometimes I wish that Swift was still with us. Any of my noble friends who think that there are Conservatives of my generation who can be hoodwinked by Communism may perhaps find consolation at my second last point. In my view, it is only a piety—a needed one, perhaps—to iterate and reiterate that peace in South-East Asia will, must, can, only be achieved at the negotiating table. You cannot negotiate with people who do
820
not believe that there is a possibility of more than one side to every question.
I do not believe that an insurgent Far Eastern Communist nationalism would honour any agreement with America, with any Western Power, for an hour longer than it might find expedient, or for an hour beyond whatever temporary breathing space it might desire. So far as Hanoi is concerned, the conference table is a green baise jungle where guerrilla warfare can be extended by other means. I believe that the West must itself adapt to such tactics, however it may go against the grain to say so. I believe that America has already adapted in this way; that Dr. Kiesinger, whom, fortuitously, I know well, perhaps feels that President Nixon will succeed with a military stop-go policy: war, war one moment, jaw, jaw the next. It is a quite credible, indeed orthodox policy. Its failure, which, contrary to the views of my noble friend Lord Bethell, to which I always attend with respect, I would rashly hazard is already complete, is due to the phenomenon which most thinking Americans recognise, which most European Governments recognise, but which Mr. Stewart does not recognise, Mr. Maudling does not recognise, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, does not recognise, and which my noble Leader seems to me to pretend not to recognise—the fact that America herself knows that she cannot indefinitely guarantee Vietnamisation and that the world knows that she knows.
Finally, the reality we face is not so much that America has suffered a defeat in South-East Asia as that victory and defeat are volatile notions the world over, as open to hallucinations now as they have ever been. In a dangerous and difficult world let us abandon the domino-like notions of black and white, absolute good and absolute evil, absolute friends and absolute peace. Only in this way can we recognise the intelligent, the truly flexible, response which is the mark of a creative humanity, the will as well as the wish for peace.
8.39 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than about seven minutes in what I have to say. But I think the speech to which we have just listened gives an indication of how difficult it is for some of us to

821
understand the opinions held by the youth in this country to-day. From all my experience of having served in South-East Asia, and after having listened to what the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said about our influence abroad, I should have thought that it was still considerable in our territories overseas where we have had some influence and where we were listened to when our advice was sought. On those points I disagree with everything the noble Earl had to say.
I should like, at the outset of my speech, to pay my tribute to the words of my noble friend Lord Carrington, and particularly to his reference to how we met and overcame the Communist Chinese insurrection in Malaya. From my experience of South-East Asia, and Malaya in particular, I agree with the noble Lord's perceptive analysis of the Communist threat to that area and to the area generally, and I also agree with many of the speeches that have been made to-night that we must still, nevertheless, no matter what we may think of Communist imperial aggression, persist with our consultations, although we know, as has been stated by other noble Lords, that our attempts to negotiate and consult with these people have now gone on for many years and with practically no success anywhere. From my own experiences of this Communist insurrection, I have a personal hatred of Communist aggression and insurrection, and I have no illusions whatever of what this means, and what it might mean if it were to extend its sphere of influence over various parts of the world.
It would be quite out of place if I did not, at this stage, state that I am sure noble Lords feel they have been honoured by the presence in your Lordships' House of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, who from his tremendous experience has made proposals as to how it might be possible to obtain peace in that part of the world, South-East Asia, which we have been discussing to-night. I feel certain that consideration will be given to the proposals which he made. May I refer to one other speech? I felt that the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, certainly injected some realism into the threat that faces that area to-day.
When I was a cadet in the Colonial Service in Malaya in 1928, a friend of mine came into the office with a map of
822
China on which Malaya was incorporated as the thirteenth province. I say no more. He had been in Canton studying Chinese. This was a perfectly genuine map, purchased in Canton at that time, 42 years ago. But Malaya is not yet the thirteenth province of China. From 1928 to the Japanese attack of 1941, there was comparative peace in the area and considerable prosperity for the peoples of Indo-China under the French, and for the Malaysians under the British in Malaya. But by the Japanese attack in 1941 all that was changed; as far as Far Eastern eyes were concerned, the white people were seen to be vulnerable, a fact which had not been realised up to that time.
After the war was over, nationalism in the area supplanted the old colonialism. As was so ably put in words which I cannot echo better than by repeating them, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that it is in this void that the peoples of those areas are struggling at the present time to find their own democratic form of government. But while this has been going on there has been another danger to the area through the expansion of Chinese imperialism, which has been trying to establish its sway in the area. I have no illusions whatsoever about Chinese imperialism, which is expansionist and has as its ultimate aim the domination of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. And if that happened there would be inherent dangers to Thailand, and probably to Malaysia. If Communism were to succeed it would mean the imposition of a Police State, secret trials, confessions by torture, on the peoples of South-East Asia and on the countries I have mentioned.
It is a question, in my view, of where you stop all this, or where it does stop. For if this expansion were to extend to Malaysia, then Australia might well be threatened, and then Britain could conceivably be involved in a war in coming to the assistance of Australia. Of course what we all hope will happen in the interim is that the free countries of South-East Asia will find their own forms of government, and that they will be strong enough to defend themselves. But—and this is where I would say I pay my tribute to the Americans at the present time—it is my view that the Americans are helping that area by an intervention which gives the peoples of

823
that area a breathing space to find their own form of government, and their own way of life.
I should also say—and from what I know particularly of Malaysia I would submit—that there is considerable evidence from among the majority of the peoples of South-East Asia that they utterly and completely reject the Communist doctrine. Nevertheless—and I think this is an aspect which we must never forget—it is a system which, I know, recruits young people into its militia at the point of a gun, and it is also a system which maintains its order at the point of a gun. I wish all these facts could be placed in intelligent fashion before that minority of students at our universities and those who demonstrate under the banner of "Anti-Vietnam war" and the "South-East Asia solidarity campaign".
I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who will reply, if the time has not arrived in this country when we ought to insist that the truth should be told at our universities, and elsewhere, of the practices under a Communist ideology. There is plenty of propaganda against our democratic way of life; let us tell the truth about the ideologies of other ways of life in some parts of the world. I am simply not convinced that the truth about this matter is getting through in the universities or the schools, and I ask the Government to give consideration to the proposal that I have made. On this last point—and I am now closing—I again agree with my noble friend Lord Carrington about people with double standards who persist in doing harm to our country and who make no constructive contribution to solving problems facing the peoples of South-East Asia, and who, in their antics over here, appear ridiculous to the many friends of this country overseas.
8.48 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I think this has been one of the most interesting and one of the best debates that I have heard in your Lordships' House, although many of our colleagues have had to leave. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, who is not well (and we were particularly appreciative of his coming up), apologised because he was under doctor's orders. The noble
824
Lord, Lord Milford, delivered a surprisingly moderate speech, I thought, and I am sorry that he is not here now to be able to hear that compliment.
There has been a very wide range of views. If I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I think it was right to put this debate on at the time we did. It was a satisfactory debate, and I think that even if we had started it at 3.15 we should still be ending at this moment. One or two of our colleagues have dropped out; I have not heard any great lamentations about that. I think that most of the speeches that have been made, have been greatly enjoyed—and I think I have heard nearly every speech that has been made. I am afraid that I missed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, but then he is missing mine—no; I see that he is coming back. I was going to apologise to him, because I know he made an interesting speech.
If I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, it was as a result of his initiative, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Milford, that we decided after consultation that it was right to have this debate. I think it was a right decision. Quite frankly, in many ways it is better, when we get the opportunity, to discuss a subject properly rather than in the rather gladiatorial conditions of a Private Notice Question. But, as noble Lords know the decision whether or not to allow a Private Notice Question is one that I have to take wearing not my Government hat, but my Leader of the House of Lords hat.
If I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord-Gowrie, who delivered a brilliant speech, he always places himself in a very strategic position. He claims to be a member of the Conservative Party, but he could be one of the Young Liberals. With great respect, he made a rather brilliant, if slightly studied, speech. Many of us also feel very strongly. I sympathise with his feelings, but I think he underrates the extent to which political leaders both in his Party and in mine, recognise the issues. He seems to think that we do not recognise them. But we recognise them all too well. I think we sometimes bring a little more humility than one sometimes finds among people who are accustomed to expressing views charmingly, intelligently and stimulatingly in academic circles.

825
But, in contradistinction, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Gridley—and I know the strength of his feelings and his experience—that I really think it would be rather counter-productive if the Government were now to start some strange sort of anti-Communist campaign in the universities. On the whole, I should regard that as as dangerous an operation, from a democratic point of view, as one could think about.
I shall speak only very briefly indeed. I do not think your Lordships will want, or indeed expect, a much greater clarification of the position of the Government. I am quite sure that it is right that we should proceed moderately and cautiously in this matter. That is not to say that we have not very much welcomed the frank speeches that have been made this evening, whether by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder or, indeed, by my noble friend Lord Blyton. I am only sorry that more of your Lordships were not here to listen to his very forthright statement on the facts of the situation. It really was an admirable speech—and in any case, I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Blyton here on a Thursday night.
May I also say that one of the good fortunes that we always have in this House is the presence of some distinguished ex-diplomats. Unfortunately, one of the few speeches that I did not hear last night was that of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, I heard that it was very good and I thought that his speech to-day was extremely good. As the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, said, we cannot look for clear-cut formalised approaches to these problems. I hesitate to repeat those easy phrases about "calling people to the conference table" because, as was pointed out, there are difficulties in getting certain of these people to the conference table; and, though we may regret it, it would be foolish of us not to understand the obstacles which they may feel in their way. None the less, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, said, the Government have pursued, albeit without success so far, every opportunity, including some which were regarded (and the noble Lord used diplomatic language) as not diplomatically credible. There were, in fact, some rather unusual ones which were derided, but they were worth the effort.
826
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, made a number of suggestions, and we shall obviously consider them. Certainly I think that his point in relation to Anglo-French co-operation is very valid, and we all hope that that degree of co-operation which in the past has existed between ourselves and France will be strengthened. As the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, and others said, France still has a special influence in these areas. I am afraid that at the moment the chances of promoting a conference do not look very bright, but I am absolutely certain that, in one way or another, we must go on pressing for this. It was particularly notable to have the noble Earl, Lord Avon, here to-day. I think there was a degree of experience which was reflected in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who, with his wide experience in South-East Asia, touched on a sensitive area when he talked about the flanks of the present conflict.
I feel that I was a little unwise to jump up and say that we did not debate the subject yesterday, because we were going to debate it to-day, which has rather exposed me now when I am not proposing to follow up his suggestion. But in a sense his suggestion about holding the flanks illustrates the nature of the whole problem, the dangers and the difficulties in which America finds herself to-day. And I think that one message, particularly, informed all the speeches in our debate, and that was sympathy and anxiety about the United States of America. I happen to believe, and I think most noble Lords believe—we certainly made this clear yesterday—that American co-operation in the Free World and in Europe has been both generous and essential. It is therefore very much in all our interests, as well as in the interests of the United States, that some of the agonies through which the American people are going at this moment should be resolved.
It is worth noting—and I offer this thought to noble Lords who somehow believe that there is a determination on the part of the American nation to go on waging some war of aggression—that some very clear statements were made as recently as yesterday by Mr. Rogers, that in fact from next year American combat troops would no longer be engaged in Vietnam. I think that that

827
shows a little more clearly—and now that this debate has taken place things are a little clearer—what American policy is intending. It would perhaps be unwise for me to comment on whether or not it will work, but at least it is more intelligible to-day, and there is the assurance that South Vietnamese forces will take over all ground-combat responsibilities at about the middle of next year.
My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to what has been said. Of one thing I am quite certain: that we should not have rigid or preconceived ideas as to how progress can be made towards achieving peace. Nor should we overrate our capacities in this matter. But the Government and, I am sure, all responsible political leaders would greatly welcome any initiatives from anywhere to solve this problem. A fair settlement in Indo-China that would enable the peoples of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to live in peace in a way of their own choosing could really usher in a new era on earth. It is appalling to think of the agonies that are being suffered in that part of the world while we in this country live in comparative peace. And while the war drags on, there will be no stability or certainty there.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shepherd (and I did not think his speech
828
was quite so bland as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, suggested), my right honourable friends in the Foreign Office and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will continue to bend all the efforts which are open to us to help in any way at all.

BARCLAYS BANK TRUST COMPANY BILL
  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Brought from the Commons: read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

  SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at one minute past nine o'clock.