Sitting of 6 April 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KESTEVEN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
Read the Third time and passed.

ETON RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  HARINGEY CORPORATION BILL
    PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    Bills, as amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time and committed.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 20th April, 1971.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
    Mr. Alfred Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage increase he envisages in the totality of expenditure on local personal services for chronically sick and disabled persons in the year 1971–72 compared with 1970–71; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): There are
    218
    difficulties in providing figures from accounts for 1970–71 and forecasts for 1971–72 and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible. Meantime, I refer him to my hon. Friend's reply to him on 22nd March, and add that loan sanction for building and engineering work on homes and centres for the physically handicapped will amount to £3 million in England in 1971–72. Loan sanction given for building, engineering and all other related purposes on such premises amounted to £2·7 million in 970–71.—[Vol. 814. c. 64.]
    Mr. Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is continuing and widespread misunderstanding of the financial arrangements which have been made? Is he further aware that there are still local authorities claiming that they cannot possibly meet their responsibilities under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, on the basis of these financial arrangements? Does he agree that there is now an urgent need for clear and concise guidance for local authorities on this vitally important question of finance?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is a very big backlog to catch up in work for the chronically sick, handicapped and disabled. Help will come to them from many sources, including national insurance benefits, on which I made an announcement last week; the hospital services, where expenditure is rising; and local government, where the rate support grant has provided more expenditure for this purpose. In real terms, the basic figure of expenditure for these services will rise by 12½ per cent. in the current year, which is a notable increase, in addition to increases, not identifiable at the moment for the mentally handicapped, and for housing and health and hospital purposes.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is it possible for local authorities to mobilise the assistance of voluntary bodies in the coming years?
    Sir K. Joseph: The country is already benefiting from a huge range of work by voluntary bodies which Government and local authorities alike are anxious to increase.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Wandsworth

    219
    Borough Council has not made any allocation in its budget for the implementation of the Act? Will he draw the council's attention to the fact that finance is available and that it is the duty of the local authority to make known the will of Parliament in this matter so that national legislation shall not be rendered null and void at local level?
    Sir K. Joseph: I hesitate to stigmatise an Act which was passed with such good will, but the fact is that the Act carried with it no finance whatsoever. A further fact is that local authorities all over the country, including Wandsworth, were spending large sums of money for this purpose before the Act, and are spending it now.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has a deserved reputation for humanity and will be well aware of the hopes raised among disabled by the Act. Is it possible for his Department to seek reports from local authorities in a year's time to see what divergence exists between the rules they are applying for the provision of such things as telephones, and other assistance under the Act?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her introduction, but hon. Members must take responsibility if expectations are prematurely and excessively aroused about an Act which, as I say, had no finance connected with it. I will certainly consider the suggestion in the second part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question.
    Mr. Alfred Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the total number of chronically sick and disabled persons covered by provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
    Sir K. Joseph: Different Sections of the Act apply to different and overlapping groups, and I am not clear that a single estimate would be meaningful. I should in any case wish to complete my study of the report of the survey of handicapped and impaired adults living at home before attempting to form any estimate.
    Mr. Morris: Has the Minister seen the results of the very important surveys carried out recently by the Central Coun-
    220
    cil for the Disabled? Does he agree that we must know who the disabled are and where they live, and that official surveys will be no substitute for ascertaining that information?
    Sir K. Joseph: The House and the country will be much better able to judge when we publish—I hope by the end of this month or early next—the survey set in hand by our predecessors. But I should hate people to think that help from local authorities depended on registration. All sorts of people who are not registered are getting help.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: In answer to a previous Question which was tied up with this, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was no finance available. He and the House know that the fact that it was a Private Member's Bill precluded that. Surely there is nothing to stop him raising the finance if he wants to, and surely the House will give him complete freedom so to do. Will he not do that so that we can meet the objectives of this Question and the previous Question?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is behind hand in his command of the facts. The Government provided extra money in the rate support grant for the purposes of this Act.

    Homeless Persons (Hackney)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will undertake discussions with the London borough of Hackney into the provision made by this borough for the homeless.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): It would be premature for my right hon. Friend to arrange any such discussions before he has received and considered the report of the Working Party announced to the House on 18th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 386.]
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, in contrast with virtually every other London borough, the London Borough of Hackney reduced its provision for the homeless by no less than £40,000 for the year 1969–70? Does he not consider that this is deserving of inquiry? Furthermore, is it not absolutely wrong to herd together hundreds

    221
    of homeless people into one block of flats, as has been done at Duncan House in Hackney?
    Mr. Alison: I refer first to the last part of the question. The hon. Gentleman knows that the council are endeavouring to replace Duncan House with small family units. On reductions in expenditure, I understand that Hackney is to spend nearly £400,000 next year for 80 units to replace premises in redevelopment areas and for a further 30 new units.

    Retired People (Inadequate Heating)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with the London borough of Hackney concerning inadequate heating for retired people living in the borough, and particularly to local authority dwellings, having regard to the increase of hypothermia in inner London.
    Mr. Alison: None, Sir; but last November my Department drew the attention of all local authorities to the need to bear in mind the health risks of inadequate heating and the precautionary measures that might be taken to deal with them.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is not there a need for intensive research to be undertaken by the Government into the problem of inadequate heating, especially for the elderly? Does not he consider that this ought to be put in hand now so that effective provision can be made in time for next winter?
    Mr. Alison: Hypothermia is strictly a medical condition, and research with the appropriate bodies is going on continually. Precautionary measures to obviate the hazard of hypothermia have been in hand for some time and are regularly reviewed and pursued.

    Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what financial help is given by his Department to disabled people who wish to purchase a four-wheeled vehicle to replace a three-wheeled vehicle which has been supplied by his Department.
    Mr. Alison: Anyone who has been supplied with a three-wheeled vehicle may give it up and have instead a grant, up to a maximum of £90, towards the cost of modifying the foot controls of a car for operation by hand.
    Mr. Cox: With respect, that is not the question that I asked the hon. Gentleman. I asked a question about people who, by their own efforts, wish to purchase a four-wheeled vehicle to replace a vehicle that has been supplied by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. As he must know, many people feel a lack a safety when driving tricycles. Also, there is no provision whatever for their family to travel with them. Surely when disabled people—we all know that they face many problems—by their own efforts wish to purchase a four-wheeled vehicle, the Government should acknowledge that effort and make some financial contribution towards the maintenance and running costs of such a vehicle.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman knows that if an individual is entitled—and some are, both war pensioners and certain limited National Health Service patients—to a four-wheeled vehicle, he can get assistance to purchase the particular model he requires. As for the subsidy of a four-wheeled family motoring vehicle for individuals who would qualify for three-wheelers, we could not extend our range of services to that at present.
    Sir R. Cary: Is it worth while for the Department to continue to supply three-wheeled vehicles?
    Mr. Alison: A three-wheeled vehicle is indispensable for certain categories of disability. It has special provision for carrying invalid chairs within it, special light steering, and for some categories it is the only sort of vehicle that they could use.
    Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact that when a person purchases a four-wheeled vehicle and gives up a tricycle which he has already, the amount of grant that he gets for that four-wheeled vehicle is less than he got for the three-wheeler? If that is so, would the Minister look at this anomaly and remedy it?
    Mr. Alison: I will certainly consider that point.

    Unclaimed Supplementary Benefits
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now give an estimate of the number of people who are not claiming the social security benefits to which they are entitled.
    Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Member is referring to supplementary benefits, no firm estimate is possible. But there is reason to believe that, so far as the elderly are concerned, the number who are not claiming the supplementary pension to which they are entitled is now well below what it was before the introduction of the supplementary benefits scheme in 1966.
    Mr. Ashley: Is it not deplorable that so little thought has been given to people who can claim rightful benefit that no estimates of the figures can be made? Would the Minister consider setting up a committee to investigate the problem of those who can claim the rightful benefit, on the same lines as those on which he has already set up a committee to investigate the problem of those who make fraudulent claims?
    Sir K. Joseph: We know enough to be very disquieted about the low proportions of people taking up many of the benefits. But we are starting a massive take-up campaign this very month.

    Retirement Pensions (Purchasing Power)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much he estimates the basic retirement pension would have to be increased in the autumn to take account of inflation since the last increase was made; and what would be the total cost involved assuming that all other benefits were similarly treated.
    Sir K. Joseph: By less than the increases announced last week, the total cost of which is estimated at £560 million.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the National Institute's estimate that by early 1972 the increase that the pensioners will get in September of this year will be eroded to the position that the pensioners are no better off than
    224
    they were in 1965 and that there will still be 18 months to go before the next increase is given? In view of these facts and assertions, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be an annual review of pensions rather than a biennial review?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman's party put into a Statute a requirement of a two-year review, from which they would not have been able to depart. I do not see how anyone can be sure of the value of the pension as far ahead as a year from now. But I am confident that the pension, by the end of September, will be worth more than it was when it was last raised.
    Mr. Fry: Would my right hon. Friend accept congratulations from this side of the House on increasing old-age pensions in general, on bringing forward the dates on which they will be increased this year, and on making the largest increase in old-age pensions in history?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Both sides of the House want to do the best that is practicable for pensioners.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: The right hon. Gentleman has laid the blame on the Labour Party because it instituted only a two-year review, but is he aware that when the two-year review was instituted, prices were not rising to the extent that they now are?
    Sir K. Joseph: When the previous Government wanted two years to increase pensions, as opposed to our 22 months, prices were rising at over 6 per cent. a year.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that none of the tendencies postulated by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) would be realised if the Government dealt decisively and drastically with the appalling inflation resulting from the policies of the last Government and that, if he stabilises prices, with his colleagues, old-age pensioners will be the first to benefit?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. I believe that excessive wage claims are a way by which many of the present wage earners are stabbing the pensioners in the back.
    Mr. Stallard: By how much will the supplementary pension be reduced when this increase in retirement pension is granted in September?
    Sir K. Joseph: That was all announced last Wednesday. The supplementary pensioner will receive as much between November, 1969 and September, 1971 as the retirement pensioner gets.
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Social Services how many letters asking for an increase in retirement pensions have now been received by his Department since 18th June.
    Sir K. Joseph: This information is not available.
    Mr. Price: What will happen to the nearly three million people in receipt of supplementary benefit when the pension increase is implemented? Are we to see a repetition of the "fiddle" we had on previous occasions, including under the last Government, with old folk having an increase, on one hand, and losing their supplementary benefit, on the other? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing causes more ill feeling, bitterness and disappointment among old people?
    Sir K. Joseph: The argument is well known to the House that the poorest, namely, those on supplementary benefit, have an increase on account every year, that is, in intervening years between the biennial review of pensions. That is the way in which both Governments have protected the worst off from the effects of inflation.
    Mr. Concannon: When answering the letters, will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the pensioners that it is a certain class of people who pay for the increases, the same class whom earlier today the right hon. Gentleman described as stabbing the pensioners in the back?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman would be wrong if he did not connect excessive wage claims with the inflation that hits the pensioner. I am sure that most of the workers involved do not realise what they are doing, but it is sheer humbug when some trade union leaders lead campaigns to help the pensioner when at the same time they are stoking up excessive wage claims.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one of the most popular features of the package he announced last week was the relaxation of the earnings rule, which enables pensioners to help themselves?
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his ill-tempered and bad-mannered replies merely reveal that he has something to hide in his attitude to the old people?
    Sir K. Joseph: I would have hoped for a better attack than that from a Celtic romantic like the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much the pension payable to retirement pensioners in November, 1969 has decreased in purchasing power, to the latest convenient date; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: As measured by the General Index of Retail Prices, the purchasing power of retirement pensions fell between November, 1969 and February, 1971 by £0·48 for a single person and £0·78 for a married couple at November, 1969 prices. The hon. Member will no doubt have noted the statement I made on 31st March.—[Vol. 814, c. 1499–1514.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, in view of that erosion, that either the pension increase should be paid now instead of in September, or it should be paid retrospectively? Does he agree that the pension should be reviewed annually, to ensure that pensions keep pace with the cost of living?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir, and I hope that we need not take for granted the immediate past or present rate of inflation. I am sure that it is helpful for the pensioner to be able to count in general on something like a two-year review of pensions.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that even if the rate of inflation during the period since September, 1969 continued until 20th September next, which it will not, the £1-a-week increase in the single rate of pension is still 50 per cent. more than the rate of inflation since September, 1969?
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend spoilt his case by the last figure. It will be better than the rate of inflation, but I should not like to give a figure for how much it will be better.
    Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier of the workers stabbing the pensioners in the back. Is he aware that it was his Government who dismantled the Consumer Council, resulting in 6,000 price increases; that it was his Government who dismantled the transport subsidies, resulting in higher fares; and that in all their many other measures it is his Government who are responsible for the present inflation?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has got his economic forces and the scale of the matter completely wrong. It is overwhelmingly the excessive wage claims, unaccompanied by increases in output, that are damaging the pensioners.

    Census Data (Commercial Uses)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services to whom data from the 1971 Census can be sold; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: Provided the data are subject to the conditions stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 23rd February, they can be sold to anyone able and willing to buy them. They are not sold otherwise.—[Vol. 812, c. 303–4.]
    Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that information. As I am sure he is aware, information from the 1960 Census was sold. How can he honestly maintain that, if this information is to be available on a basis of 100-metre squares, it can be confidential? Therefore, does he not agree that people who wish to preserve the confidentiality and privacy of their personal information would be well advised to risk the £50 fine and not to fill out the form?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman staggers me by his irresponsibility. He has been assured that the information in the Census is not sold in any form that would allow of individual information to be available. The statistical tabulations are what is called, technically,
    228
    disaggregated. I propose to set a minimum limit of size upon areas for which tabulations may be sold to meet the point which the hon. Gentleman raises. The hon. Gentleman behaves and speaks as if there were some malign intention behind what his own Government practised.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a considerable amount of disquiet in general in the country about this? Although repudiating the exaggerated language used by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will try to assure the public that there is no danger that any individual or individual street could be identified?
    Sir K. Joseph: I find my hon. Friend's method of putting this point entirely acceptable, because he is not suggesting a conspiracy by Government, as was the hon. Member for Nuneaton.

    Computer Databanks
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many computer databanks are operated by his Department; and who has access to their terminals.
    Sir K. Joseph: My Department has only one computer system whose databank is accessible by computer terminals. This is the computer at Reading used for payment of short-term national insurance benefits; its terminals are installed in certain local offices of my Department and of the Department of Employment, mainly in the London area, and only designated staff of these offices dealing with payment of short-term benefits have access to them.
    Mr. Huckfield: I again thank the Secretary of State for the information. I am particularly glad that he has given some assurance on the basis of what information will be sold. Does he accept that another of the jobs for which his Department's data bank facilities will he used is the 1971 Census? As it is well known in the computer industry that pretty well any safeguard or code can be broken in under two hours, how can he possibly maintain that information given at this Census will be private and confidential?
    Sir K. Joseph: Given ill-will, malevolent intent and actual felony, any information can be got at. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that all three will be involved in attacking any information.

    Nurses (Private Medical Practice)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many nurses in the National Health Service in England and Wales have written contracts of service that give approval to doing work in private medical practice; and what is the average percentage of both.
    Sir K. Joseph: This information is not readily available.
    Mr. Eadie: is not such an answer most unsatisfactory, as there have been many discussions in the House about fees paid in relation to contracts split up by consultants? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance for the benefit of the House that he will look into the matter and let us have the information available so that the House can make some judgment or assessment?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir.
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the chronic shortage of nurses in the National Health Service, will the Secretary of State discourage nurses from entering private practice by encouraging adequate remuneration and good conditions of employment within the National Health Service?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have done that.

    Urgent Prescriptions (Dispensing)
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what facilities there are in Watford for having urgent prescriptions dispensed after the normal closing hours for chemists;
    (2) if he will seek powers to make compulsory the provision within the area of each local authority of a chemist who will be on call after normal closing hours for dispensing urgent prescriptions and to compel chemists throughout the country to display in the windows of their shops a notice giving the name, address and telephone number of the nearest such chemist.
    Mr. Alison: Executive councils can arrange for selected pharmacies to remain open for limited periods after normal closing hours in order to dispense National Health Service prescriptions and for other pharmacies to display notices indicating their location. This is done in Watford. In addition, many chemists are willing to dispense at any time prescriptions marked "urgent" by a doctor. Doctors are normally aware which chemists are so willing and executive councils have been advised to supply lists of them to the police. There are eight such chemists in Watford.
    Mr. Tuck: Is the Under-Secretary aware that a death and a near-death occurred in Watford because when the doctor in each case had written an urgent prescription after hours no one in Watford, not even the hospitals, knew of a chemist which was open, and this resulted in a tragedy in one case? Will the Minister adopt the suggestion contained in Question 13 so as to preclude the possibility of such tragedies occurring in future?
    Mr. Alison: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for writing to me on this subject. I wish to express my deep regret at the shocking death to which he referred. I will certainly look into all the circumstances surrounding these cases. I hope that he will note that there are chemists, the existence of which should be more widely known in Watford, which were and are open at these times.
    Mr. Kinsey: Will my hon. Friend look further into this problem, because it is not only outside normal hours that we are beginning to have trouble? In the Birmingham district the greatest difficulty is being experienced in getting chemists' shops set up on outlying estates. Will my hon. Friend have talks with the pharmaceutical bodies to see what can be done to get these facilities established in these areas?
    Mr. Alison: I should be glad if my hon. Friend would send me details of any cases he has in mind. Executive councils have facilities for encouraging and helping pharmacists to set up in areas which do not have large centres of population.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Has the Under-Secretary any evidence of a growing practice of people striking items out from

    231
    doctors' prescriptions because of the cost of the items? If this happens in any case or in many cases, is it not a very serious matter?
    Mr. Alison: That is a very much wider question. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about any such cases, I will certainly look into them. I have no such evidence myself.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Under-Secretary aware that in rural areas the problem of the scarcity of chemists is reaching serious proportions? Will he investigate the possibilities of having more mobile chemists in rural and suburban areas who can arrange to be in certain places to fill prescriptions at a certain time each week? This would be of great help in country areas where pensioners, for example, have to travel great distances and pay high fares to get prescriptions filled.
    Mr. Alison: I note the suggestion contained in the latter part of the supplementary question. If the hon. Gentleman will specify the rural areas he had in mind in putting the first part of his supplementary question, I will certainly look into the matter.

    Medical Group Practices (Grants)
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what criteria are used to judge whether a medical group practice in a rural area qualifies for grant for the building of a medical centre containing consulting rooms and ancillary offices.
    Mr. Alison: There are no rigid criteria governing the provision of health centres in rural areas: each case is considered on its merits, including the needs of the patients and the organisation generally of medical services in the area. I shall write to my hon. Friend about the particular case which I understand he has in mind.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he not agree that in some rural areas it is particularly difficult for the small number of doctors, who cover quite a large area, with not all that many patients, to find the necessary finance to set up these worth-while and necessary centres? In this connection, I refer to such places at Tideswell in my constitu-
    232
    ency. Will he do what he can to encourage this development and see what can be done to make the load easier
    Mr. Alison: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I shall write to him about the Tideswell case which he specified.

    Severely Disabled Pensioners (Supplementary Benefit)
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now review the level of supplementary benefit payable to the severely disabled who are retirement pensioners and in need of additional warmth and nutrition.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has discretionary powers to increase the weekly rate of supplementary benefit above the ordinary requirements level when a person has a special need.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that, and it may well be the case, but is it not true, nevertheless, that people who are severely disabled, perhaps having had a double amputation, have great need for extra warmth, but that in many cases this cannot be forthcoming because the cost is excessive? Will he look into such cases for me?
    Sir K. Joseph: At the suggestion of the Supplmentary Benefits Commission, we increased the money available for the Commission to provide extra cash to those with special heating needs. I hope that my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members who are concerned will let me know of any severely disabled persons whose heating requirements are not being met by the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
    Mr. Meacher: In view of the very small number of severely disabled persons receiving exceptional need grant for heating, and in view of the still pathetically meagre amount of the grant, will the right hon. Gentleman institute a heating allowance of at least 50p a week as of right for all the severely disabled for the six months of autumn and winter each year?
    Sir K. Joseph: The discretionary power given to the Supplementary Benefits Commission is, surely, just what is

    233
    needed for individuals whose requirements, housing and other conditions vary from case to case. The hon. Gentleman asks for a 50p allowance. It has been increased to permit a 75p allowance per week throughout the year, when necessary.

    Family Planning
    Mrs. Renee Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many local authorities have organised in-service training for health visitors and domiciliary midwives in family planning methods; and how many hospitals give family planning advice to mothers at their post-natal examination or during the lying-in period.
    Mr. Alison: The information is not held centrally.
    Mrs. Short: That is a very disappointing reply. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must be as concerned as are most responsible people about the number of unwanted and unplanned babies being born each year. Does he not think that, if he were to follow the suggestion advanced in my Question, midwives and health visitors could take a great deal of the responsibility for this work from doctors, provided that they were suitably trained, and does he not consider that it is a gross neglect of his duty not to ensure that hospitals carry out this work at a time when mothers are most receptive to this kind of information? Will he now act upon that suggestion?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady knows that hospitals do give advice in these cases. We are planning to issue further guidance to hospitals on the development of their family planning services. We give a good deal of money, either through local authority grants or through help to the Family Planning Association, to encourage training in family planning techniques.

    Mentally Handicapped Persons
    Mrs. Shirley Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish a White Paper on the mentally handicapped; and what steps he is taking at present to improve overcrowding, dietary levels, and the provision of personal clothing in hospitals for the mentally handicapped.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have confirmed the request made by my predecessor to regional hospital boards to effect in all hospitals for the mentally handicapped a wide range of improvements including those referred to by the hon. Member. Additional money has been provided, and guidance on these particular matters has been issued or is under consideration. I expect to issue a general policy document within the next two to three months.
    Mrs. Williams: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. I am sure that he appreciates the urgency of issuing a general policy document, since morale among the staff of hospitals of this kind is of crucial importance. May we take it that he will bring forward that document at the earliest possible moment?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.
    Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind also the problem of the mentally handicapped who are not in hospital and whose need is as great as, if not greater than, the need of those who have the fortune to be in hospital?
    Sir K. Joseph: The Government have very much in mind the pressure on parents and relatives who are looking after mentally handicapped persons at home and who are not yet receiving the full range of services to which, ideally, they should have access. This will be covered in the policy guidance, and it is all part of the field for which we have provided extra money.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the document which the right hon. Gentleman is to issue be substantially the same as that which he found on his desk when he took office'? In view of the need for discussion on the restructuring of the Health Service, on the second consultative document which is due to come out, will he make a statement about how this is to be co-ordinated with the general provisions of the rest of the Health Service, apart from the mentally handicapped?
    Sir K. Joseph: The principles of the document will be much the same as in that which I found. With no disrespect to my predecessor, who initiated most valuable action in relation to the mentally handicapped, I should say that the great difference will be that we have

    235
    found extra money, both for the local authorities and for the hospital service, for help to the mentally handicapped.

    Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the total number of people awaiting admission to hospitals within the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board area.
    Sir K. Joseph: About 61,000 on 31st December, 1970.
    Mr. Price: That is a devastating answer which will cause dismay throughout the Midlands, even allowing for the fact that many of them are not emergency cases. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into one matter for me? Is he satisfied that, over the past 20 years, the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board has had its fair share of available capital resources?
    Sir K. Joseph: I should need notice to go into the record in that respect, but I note that the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board is spending a much larger sum this year than it spent in previous years. The waiting list is, I fear, only just about the national average.
    Mr. Marks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread and understandable belief that one can jump the queue by paying a fee for a consultation and thereby get priority for a National Health Service bed? Will he make a full inquiry into this state of affairs?
    Sir K. Joseph: This Government, like the last Government, encourage private practice for a moderate proportion of National Health Service beds. Hon. Members should recognise that in the
    Birmingham region about 1½ per cent. of the beds are available for private patients. I do not propose to discourage this practice. I have a report about alleged irregularities, which I am about to study.
    Mrs. Knight: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that a considerable number of people on the waiting list, especially children waiting for E.N.T. treatment, find their waiting difficulties exacerbated as a result of the Labour Government's closure of Moseley Hall
    236
    Hospital, about which they were warned by the then Opposition?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am sure that, if my hon. Friend says so, there is something in it, but I have no knowledge of that at the moment.
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the serious and alarming figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given, will he have a report not only on the Birmingham area but extended nationally to see that this sort of thing is not going on in other parts of the country?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady need not be hypocritical about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] Not for a moment will I withdraw. The hon. Lady gives the impression that the waiting lists are worse than they were under her Government. The waiting lists are a disgrace, and this Government propose to do something about them.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: We are not at this moment protesting about the length of the waiting lists. We are asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that the present occupancy of private beds is a crying scandal in the Birmingham area.
    Sir K. Joseph: If there are irregularities, they will be reported to me in the report which I am about to read. I do not accept that private beds as such are in any way a scandal.

    Peterlee Health Centre
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the expected completion date of the outpatient facilities at Peterlee Health Centre; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: Present estimates are that the facilities may be complete by spring, 1972. It has, after all, not proved possible to co-ordinate their completion with that of the in-patient accommodation at Ryhope Hospital, but the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board will make arrangements for out-patient services now available at Leeholme Hospital to be maintained there or elsewhere until the new premises are ready at Peterlee Health Centre.
    Mr. Dormand: I detect a certain caginess in that reply. Does the Minister

    237
    agree that it is of the utmost importance that the completion of out-patient facilities at Peterlee be timed to coincide with the closure of Leeholme Hospital? Is he aware that many of my constituents view with the gravest concern and suspicion the delay being experienced? Will he bring pressure to bear to see that the co-ordination which he mentioned is kept to by the authorities concerned?
    Mr. Alison: I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that co-ordination has not been possible between the old hospital and the new health centre, but, as I reassured him, we shall make quite certain that, parallel facilities will be available, at least until the new heath centre is complete.

  PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH (NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE)
  Mr. Peter Archerasked the Prime Minister if he wil place in the Library a copy of his speech to the Conservative Local Government Conference at Newcastle-upon Tyne, on 13th March on the promotion of individual responsibility.
  Mr. John D. Grantasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech made to the Conservative Local Government Conference at Newcastle on 13th March, 1971, concerning inflation and other matters.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend did so on 15th March.
  Mr. Archer: Is not it the Government's case that individual responsibility is best promoted in the poor by increased optical, dental and prescription charges, by cuts in welfare milk and increased charges for school meals, and best promoted in the rich by substantial tax concessions to the higher income groups; that is, in the poor by making them poorer, and in the rich by making them richer?
  Mr. Maudling: In the Government's view, individual responsibility and the welfare of the community as a whole are enhanced by reducing taxation.
  Mr. Grant: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us would like to congratulate the Prime Minister on the obvious impact he had on the level of pay settlements in the private sector in his recent talks with Mr. Henry Ford? Does he agree with me that Mr. Ford accorded the Prime Minister's views the respect they deserve?
  Mr. Maudling: I think that the hon. Gentleman is anticipating a later Question.

  MR. HENRY FORD (DISCUSSION)
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent talks with Mr. Henry Ford concerning industrial relations and future investment intentions.
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Prime Minister what further communication he has received from Mr. Henry Ford in connection with the investment policy in Great Britain of the Ford Motor Company.
  Mr. Eadieasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the car industry as a result of his Official meeting on 15th March with the representatives of the Ford Motor Company.
  Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
  I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a Question from the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 18th March. Mr. Ford has since told my right hon. Friend that he was encouraged by the discussion.—[Vol. 813, c. 396–7.]
  Mr. Hamilton: I do not think that the Prime Minister on that occasion referred to the wage settlement then pending at Fords. Did the Prime Minister indicate what kind of wage settlement he would like to see at Fords? Does the right hon. Gentleman now concur with the view of the Secretary of State for Employment that it is a very good agreement, that is, 16 per cent. in each of the next two years?
  Mr. Maudling: I think that what has been said by my right hon. Friend the

  239
  Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is that the agreement, so far as it provides for steadier working over a period, has good features, but the actual level of the settlement, as they have both said, is disturbingly high.
  Mr. Edelman: Since American financial interests now control the major part of the British motor industry, and since those interests are often in conflict with Britain's wider economic strategy, will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up a more formal and continuing machinery of consultation, to avoid the hectoring and widely-resented attitudes displayed by Mr. Henry Ford?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not accept at all that the American motor firms in this country operate in conflict with the wider interests or policy of this country. In fact, the Ford Motor Company has over the years made a wholly outstanding contribution to British exports, and if it were not for some of the wildcat strikes it would be better still.
  Mr. Eadie: But since the Prime Minister is continuing to boast about how he is standing up to trade unionists, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister that it is time he stood up for the British people, and did not allow American industrialists to come here and denigrate British people and Great Britain?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not accept that that is what they do. American industrialists have made a great contribution to our economy, not least the economy of Scotland.
  Sir F. Bennett: Could my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister help us as to the purport of some of the questions from Labour hon. Members? Is is being suggested that Mr. Henry Ford should be encouraged or discouraged by the events of the past few days at Fords?
  Mr. Maudling: It is a little difficult for me to discern from hon. Members opposite exactly what they are talking about.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman said, in answer to an earlier supplementary question, that Mr. Henry Ford II had said that he was encouraged by the discussions with the Prime Minis-
  240
  ter. Did the Prime Minister make it clear to Mr. Ford that he was, apparently, pursuing a totally different wages policy in the private sector as compared with the public sector?
  Mr. Maudling: No, certainly not, because my right hon. Friend is not doing so.
  Mr. Tugendhat: While agreeing with what my right hon. Friend said about the relationship between Britain and the American-controlled motor companies, may I ask him whether he does not agree that the very substantial proportion of our economy now controlled by foreign-owned international concerns demands new methods of consultation on a continuing basis with the heads of these concerns? Is this not becoming increasingly necessary?
  Mr. Maudling: The growth of international companies is a phenomenon of this decade, and they are still growing fast. But it has been my experience in Government that the co-operation which the British Government receive from foreign investors in this country is remarkably good.
  Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Henry Ford II was talking "bosh" about British industrial relations? Is he aware that figures I have, which were secured by the Library Department, partly from the United States, prove beyond doubt that, in both official and unofficial strikes, the record in the Ford plants in the United States is much worse than has even been the case in Britain?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not carry the figures in my head but I should have thought that developments in the last 24 hours in the dispute would have caused Mr. Ford to doubt what British labour was trying to do.

  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of his official appointments for Wednesday, 5th May, 1971.
  Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
  It is not the practice to do so.
  Mr. Lewis: While it may not be the practice, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister that, after enjoying the lunch which he has fixed for that day, when speaking to the assembled company he should explain not only that he has been successful in cutting, at a stroke, the surtax and the taxation paid by the higher income groups but that he is also going to cut prices at a stroke, as he promised to do during the election?
  Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Budget not only brought taxes down but has resulted in prices being cut as well.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to this auspicious occasion at the Savoy Hotel, will my right hon. Friend recommend to the Prime Minister that he should invite, as his special guests, two new recruits to Tory philosophy, namely, the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) and the former Labour Member for Pembroke, Mr. Desmond Donnolly, both of whom now reject the policies of the Labour Party?
  Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend will be the guest and not the host at that luncheon.
  Mr. William Price: Can the right hon. Gentleman unravel one of the greatest mysteries in modern politics—
  Mr. William Hamilton: He is in Germany.
  Mr. Price: —and tell us where he and his colleagues do their shopping?
  Mr. Maudling: I do my shopping in the local village stores at the weekend. It will be interesting to see whether they have made cuts in their prices as the large grocery chain stores have advertised that they are doing.

  SWINDON
  Mr. David Stoddartasked the Prime Minister if he will now pay an official visit to Swindon.
  Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Stoddart: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Prime Minister,
  242
  when he next sees him, that he will need the Chieftain tank he was driving in Germany yesterday when he comes to Swindon to meet some of the 5,000 ladies there who signed the petition asking him to honour his election pledge to cut prices at a stroke? Is he aware that they are most hurt and insulted that the Prime Minister did not deign to reply to that petition himself but sent a discourteous and disgusting reply through his political secretary, who is not a Member of this House? Will he also ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision not to visit my constituency, since unemployment in Swindon has risen by 50 per cent. and the number of unfilled vacancies has fallen by 50 per cent?
  Mr. Maudling: It seems that there is a certain sameness in the phrasing of some of the supplementary questions today. My right hon. Friend is much touched by the many invitations he has received to visit constituencies, and no doubt he will be able to visit them all in turn in the many years during which he will be Prime Minister.

  CIVIL SERVICE (SIZE)
  Mr. John Wellsasked the Prime Minister to what extent his policy on the size of the Civil Service has changed since 26th June, 1970.
  Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
  There is no change.
  Mr. Wells: Will my right hon. Friend draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that the Civil Service has increased rather than decreased since that speech? Not only has the Civil Service as such increased, but the staffs of training boards have increased. Will he convey to the Prime Minister our hope that he will take Government off the backs of the people?
  Mr. Maudling: The trend in the industrial and the non-industrial Civil Service has been established for some time. When we took office, it was rising in the case of the non-industrial Civil Service and falling in the case of the industrial Civil Service. The latter trend is continuing. The total of non-industrial Civil Servants at 1st April was under

  243
  500,000 compared with the ceiling figure of 505,000 set by the last Government.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Whatever fall there may have been in the period which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, will it not disappear as and when the value-added tax is introduced?
  Mr. Maudling: The value-added tax will involve a certain number of civil servants but will be only one element in a total picture in which we carry out our undertakings.

  REVIEW BODIES ON SALARIES
  Mr. John D. Grantasked the Prime Minister what appointments he has now made to the review bodies on top salaries; pay for the Armed Forces; and for doctors and dentists.
  Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement before the House rises for Easter.
  Mr. Grant: While regretting that nothing can be said today, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that hon. Members—on this side, perhaps, in particular—some of whom have a special interest in the findings of at least one of these bodies, would welcome the appointment of Professor Clegg, Sir Jack Scamp or even Mr. Stanley Gillen, of the Ford Motor Company? In view of the wide interest in these review bodies, has the right hon. Gentleman had consultations with the two sides of industry about these appointments?
  Mr. Maudling: As I said, my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement before the House rises for the Easter Recess. That would be the appropriate time to go into these matters.

  TRADES UNION CONGRESS (PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING)
  Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister if he will now arrange a further meeting with the Trades Union Congress to discuss matters of common concern.
  Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend will be discussing economic policy with representatives of the T.U.C. when he takes the Chair at tomorrow's meeting of the N.E.D.C.
  Mr. Ashley: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to explain at the meeting the principles of free and vigorous competition and also to explain to the trade union leaders there why those principles apply to everyone except the trade unions?
  Mr. Maudling: One of the most important features in the economic problem is the monopoly power exercised by certain trade unions. It is as simple as that. As the Leader of the Opposition said on one occasion, one of the great needs of economic policy is to ensure that monopoly positions are not used to excess against the national interest.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would it not be a good thing if the T.U.C. invited the Prime Minister to be guest speaker at the Congress this year?
  Mr. Maudling: I am sure that due note will be taken of that suggestion.
  Mr. Molloy: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the words used earlier today by the Secretary of State for Social Services—that British workers are stabbing pensioners in the back—would in no way help the discussions which any Government would have to have with the T.U.C.? Does not he also agree, with the gold and dollar reserves at so high a level, with record exports in the last few weeks, and with the inheritance by the Government of a £600 million-plus surplus as compared with the £800 million-plus deficit which they left the Labour Government in 1964, that all these achievements are the result of efforts by men and women who work with hand and brain? Does not he agree that the words used by the Secretary of State should be withdrawn completely?
  Mr. Maudling: There remains the fundamental fact that those who suffer most from inflation are pensioners, and when inflation arises from excessive increases in incomes, the deduction is clearly to be drawn.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I thought that the Industrial Relations Bill was intended to deal with a small number of militants in the trade unions. Is the Home Secretary now saying that it is designed to break the monopoly position of the big unions?
  Mr. Maudling: I said nothing of the sort; nor has anyone on this side of the House said anything like that about the Bill.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN
  Richard Napier Luce, esquire, Member for Arundel and Shoreham, was sworn.

JOINT NUCLEAR FORCE (STATEMENT)
Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order. I wish to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss a specific matter of importance, namely,
"the statement by the Dutch Foreign Minister that Britain is proposing the setting-up of a joint nuclear force with France in exchange for French support for Britain's entry into the European Economic Community."
I submit first that the matter is specific. Today I checked with the Dutch Embassy in London, which kindly telephoned Holland and confirmed that the report on the front page of the Sunday Times is roughly accurate. Under the headline
"Britain to offer nuclear pact to the French"
the report read:
"Mr. Heath is considering proposing to President Pompidou that Britain and France should set up a joint nuclear force. Dr. Joseph Luns, the Dutch Foreign Minister, says his Government is aware of the plan which Mr. Heath is expected to put to the French President at a meeting likely to be held in Paris shortly".
Secondly, I submit that the matter is urgent because this meeting would take place shortly and it is on this occasion that the proposal would be discussed, unless Parliament and good sense have the necessary effect and induce the Prime Minister to jettison the scheme in advance.
May I ask for a little less noise, Mr. Speaker? The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)
246
has such a loud voice that it is sometimes difficult for us to make ourselves heard.
Lastly, the matter is of the utmost importance because—
Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is impossible for some of us, even those sitting as close as I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), to hear what he is saying. Would you kindly ask hon. Members opposite to listen or to leave the Chamber?
Mr. Allaun: The matter is of the utmost importance, because to trade our nuclear secrets would mean the spreading H-bomb capability and thereby increase the danger of war by accident, and anything more important than that it is difficult to imagine. That would be a monstrous price to pay.
It is also important because it is well known that German technicians are engaged on the French nuclear project, which is in difficulty, and hence the know-how would also spread to Germany. This would so alarm the Russian Government as to destroy hopes of an East-West settlement and mutual arms reduction. Finally, it is important as it would breach both the spirit and the letter of the non-proliferation agreement.
For these reasons, I urge that Parliament should have the opportunity to discuss the matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific matter of importance which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
"the statement by the Dutch Foreign Minister that Britain is proposing the setting-up of a joint nuclear force with France in exchange for French support for Britain's entry into the European Economic Community".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, Mr. Speaker is required to take account of the various factors set out in that Standing Order but to give no reason for his decision. The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to give me notice that he would raise this matter, and I have given careful consideration to it, and I have also listened to his submission today. I know the sincerity with which he holds his views and what a serious matter it is

247
for many hon. and right hon. Members, but I have to decide, and I have decided, that I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. I do not wish in any way to question your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but, as you know, the House will shortly go into recess for Easter and no hon. Member will be able to raise this subject in debate during that time. May I ask whether, without prejudice to what may be said, in view of the special circumstances you will consider an application by my hon. Friend tomorrow to ask a Private Notice Question so that we may have a statement from the Government on this subject? Will you say that you would not preclude his right to ask a Private Notice Question because he has raised the matter today?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot preclude the hon. Member's right to ask permission to put a Private Notice Question, but I would not announce in advance what my decision on it would be.

MAURITIUS (GIFT OF A MACE)
Mr. Bernard Braine: You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that on 25th November last the House resolved that a Mace be presented to the Legislative Assembly of Mauritius and on 17th December the House gave leave of absence to the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) and myself to go to Mauritius to make the presentation.
We left on 7th March and we were accompanied by one of the Principal Clerks of the House, Mr. Michael Lawrence. By a happy coincidence, our mission coincided with the time when Mauritius was celebrating the third anniversary of her independence.
I am pleased to report that on 9th March the Mace was presented in the splendid Chamber of the Legislative Assembly in St. Port Louis, which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have had the opportunity of visiting in recent years.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Not yet.
Mr. Braine: That is a pleasure deferred, because Mauritius is a delightful
248
place. All went successfully. My colleagues and I were escorted into the Chamber by the Prime Minister, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Maurice Lesage. We were warmly greeted by Mr. Speaker Vaghjee, to whom we had already conveyed your kind personal message which you had entrusted to me, Mr. Speaker, and which he later read out to the Assembly.
In my speech I emphasised that whenever this ancient House had sought to mark the independence of a new Commonwealth nation it had sent a gift of a kind which linked symbolically the idea of representative government with parliamentary practice—for example a Chair for Mr. Speaker or a Mace for the Table. It is perhaps a measure of the rapidity with which the modern Commonwealth has evolved that this was the thirtieth such occasion in the past two decades.
Following the handing over of the Mace, the Prime Minister moved a Motion of thanks, which was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, both making eloquent speeches.
The Motion read as follows:
"We, the Legislative Assembly of Mauritius, accept with grateful thanks the generous gift of a Mace from the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the same spirit in which it is offered, that is as a token of friendship and goodwill of the House of Commons towards our Legislative Assembly and the people of Mauritius."
The Motion was carried unanimously and I would respectfully ask that it be recorded in the Journal of the House.
Finally, may I say that Mauritius is a small and very beautiful country, but the most abiding memory my colleagues and I carried away was the extraordinary kindness and hospitality of its people. In a world where there are so many divisions we were struck by the way in which the Mauritian people, drawn as they are from three continents and representing a great diversity of culture, are working together to build a worth-while and enduring society, the chief characteristics of which are tolerance and humanity. We were also struck by the firm attachment of the Mauritian people to the processes of democratic discussion.
At the same time I feel it is my duty, and I know that the hon. Member for

249
Battersea, South would agree with me here, to tell the House that we were left in no doubt as to the seriousness of the problems which will face Mauritius, overwhelmingly dependent as she is on the sugar industry, if the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement arrangements are weakened in any way.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Braine: My colleagues and I would like to express our deep gratitude to the Prime Minister of Mauritius, his Government, to Mr. Speaker Vaghjee and the Parliament for their great kindness and hospitality and for all they did to enable us to meet so many people. At the same time we would like to express our thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House of Commons for entrusting us with so pleasant and rewarding a mission.
Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member bring the Motion to the Table?
Motion brought to the Table.
Mr. Speaker: The House would wish me to thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the way in which they carried out their mission on behalf of the House. We thank them, we thank the hon. Member for his report and I will see that the Resolution which was passed at the ceremony of the presentation of the Mace is entered in the Journal of the House of Commons.

COUNT OF THE HOUSE
Sir Elwyn Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance on a matter which may be of some importance to the House. Last Friday, just after 1 p.m., the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) called for a count while my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer, was speaking on the Protection of Human Rights Bill, the Second Reading of which had been moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) half an hour before. As only 38 Members were present the House was counted out.
During the count it appeared that there were some grounds for thinking that the Division bells were not working properly. There was some uncertainty in the circumstances whether the matter could be
250
raised at all during the count on a point of order. Before the matter could be fully pursued the four minutes had elapsed, just as I was endeavouring to submit to Mr. Deputy Speaker that a recount should be taken. In view of the effiuxion of time Mr. Deputy Speaker left the Chair.
The first question on which I seek your ruling is whether a point of order can be raised during a count. The only guidance in Erskine May is that permission to raise a point of order during a count has been refused. That refusal was made by Mr. Speaker FitzRoy on 10th September, 1941. It would seem that the matter depends on the discretion of the Chair. In my submission that cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs. There is no indication as to the principles on which that discretion should be exercised and I submit that it would surely be unacceptable if, for instance, there was a total failure of the bells to ring but because of the Ruling it would become impossible to raise the matter during the count on a point of order. If a point of order can be raised during a Division, it should surely be right for an hon. Member to raise a point of order during a count and to do so uncovered, because I understand the function of the hat is merely to identify the hon. Member who is seeking to raise the point of order during a Division.
The second matter, and this is probably something for consideration by the Select Committee on Procedure, is this. Is there not a case for examining afresh our present procedure which enables a single hon. Member to frustrate the very proper wishes of many other hon. Members, who may want to support or oppose a Private Member's Bill or to discuss an issue of importance which may be raised by a private Member? The difficulty generally arises on Fridays, which is traditionally the private Members' day.
Should there not be some further restriction than there is now on the power of any individual hon. Member in effect to guillotine debate and discussion in the Chamber after—as was the case on Friday—a minimal discussion lasting for half an hour on a matter being considered by the House? This was at about 1 p.m., when there were three further hours available to those Members in the House anxious to continue the discussion. It is

251
somewhat ironic that this matter arose in a discussion on a Bill dealing with the protection of human rights and it would seem that there is occasion for looking at the protection of private Members of Parliament.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. When you are considering this matter, may I draw your attention to the fact that, as reported in HANSARD, I raised this with the occupant of the Chair who accepted my point of order. My point of order was raised well within the limit of four minutes and it was then explained at length that there were certain parts of the building where the bells were not then sounding. It would perhaps have been possible, as has happened on previous occasions, for the count to have been called again.
I suggest that it might help if you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House were to introduce a system whereby when the Division bells and the bells for the count are ringing an electronic flash indicator could be put in circuit at the Clerk's table so that if in any part of the building the bells cease to ring the indicator would automatically fuse and it would be known that the bells were not sounding properly. You could then be advised, Mr. Speaker, of the fault and a new Division or count could be called.
Immediately after the House had risen on Friday I was advised by officials of the House that in some parts of the building the bells were not sounding. That meant that some hon. Members would not have had the opportunity of coming to the Chamber to be counted had they so wished.
Mr. Molloy: Further to that point of order. A technical fault occurred on Friday which put Mr. Deputy Speaker in a difficult situation in which she had no alternative but to rule as she did, and her composed dignity helped the House in that difficult situation.
I was in the Library at the time and the bell rang for a short time and then stopped. I waited for one of two things to happen; either for a policeman or an attendant to call out that there was a Division or for the bell to ring again to show that there was a count. Neither of
252
these things happened and I did not immediately make my way to the Chamber. Only when I saw other hon. Members coming to the Chamber did I follow and discover that a count had been called. Had the bell rung properly it is likely that other hon. Members would have come to the Chamber, making a total of 40 or more present so that the debate could have continued.
Would it be proper for you to consider whether the time which the House lost through the technical failure should be restored, particularly as the issue which we were discussing was one of grave interest not only to our nation but to the United Nations and the Council of Europe, namely, human rights?
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order. Apart from the wider issues raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), is not the general principle behind a count to ascertain whether or not there is a quorum, that 40 hon. Members should either be in the Chamber or in the vicinity of the Chamber? If that is the principle, and it is not a bad one, the failure of the bells to ring would not interfere with it. The sound of the servants of the House making their usual call would be heard.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Further to that point of order. Following what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has said, I assure him that one cannot hear the servants of the House when one is in Palace Chambers. The occurrence in the Library which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) described happened also in Palace Chambers. There were two short sharp bursts of the bell, after which there was complete silence. It was only because of my personal interest in what was happening, since my Control of Personal Information Bill was to follow the Bill under discussion, that I undertook the duty of going round and making sure that hon. Members came across from Palace Chambers. The general presumption of hon. Members who came into the Chamber was that the bells had not rung for a sufficiently long time to indicate a count, with the result that there was a very small attendance when the count took place. I endorse my hon.

253
Friend's request that serious consideration be given to the question of allowing further time for consideration of last Friday's business.
Mr. Speaker: Four quite different matters have been raised. On the first one, whether a point of order is admissible during the taking of a count, I should like to consider that matter, see what my predecessors have ruled and give a considered Ruling on it. On the second matter about a single hon. Member being entitled to call for a count, I understand that is already before the Select Committee on Procedure and I have no doubt that note will be taken of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. On the third point of whether an extra parliamentary day can be requested, that is not a matter for me. On the fourth point, whether or not the bells were working properly, they have been examined by the engineers and none has been found to be defective.
I remind the House—this is not a matter for me, this is what happens—that for a Division the bells ring continuously for 55 seconds, pause for 10 seconds and ring continuously for another 55 seconds. So that for a Division the bells are ringing for two minutes. In a count bells are rung for only half that time. They ring for four seconds, followed by a pause of two seconds and then ring again on that pattern for one minute only. That may be some reason for the confusion. However, the Officers of the House and I will take every step we can to see that the bells are working properly. The other point I will consider, as I have said.

ACCESSION TO EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
3.57 p.m.
Mr. John D. Grant: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that the United Kingdom shall not become a member of the European Economic Community unless approval for such a decision has been given by at least two-thirds of the membership of this House.
This is a short and simple Ten-Minute Rule Bill which I hope will be acceptable to both sides of the House, whatever the pros and cons of the Common Market argument. Nothing could be worse for this country and for the Market countries than for Britain to slide into the Common Market on a marginal majority vote of the House, and quite possibly a minority vote, taking account of the abstentions, a vote in all probability secured only by pressure of the Government Whips and the threat of a General Election. Additionally, a bare parliamentary majority might be achieved although the feeling of the country at best might be one of reluctant acquiescence and at worst resentment.
We hear it said that in such circumstances the Government would not dare to opt for entry, but many of us on these benches have witnessed in the last nine months what we believe to be a failure of the Government to gauge the mood of the country on a large number of important issues, and many of us also feel that this Administration has behaved with considerable arrogance. We could yet be steamrollered into the Market against the wishes of at least a large minority of this House and possibly a large majority of the public.
There was little emphasis on the necessary safeguards in the speech which the Prime Minister made in Bonn yesterday. On the other hand, when he was speaking to the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris on 5th May, 1970, just before the General Election, the Prime Minister said that it would not be in the interests of the E.E.C.:
"that its enlargement should take place except with the fullhearted consent of the Parliaments and peoples of the new member countries".
I am not happy with the Prime Minister's use of words. Some of his post-election

255
utterances have taken on curious interpretations. For instance, the Prime Minister used the word "reduction" in terms of prices, which seems now to be translated as an upward spiral movement. It is high time he spelt out what he meant by "full-hearted consent".
The proposal in my Bill may be unique in this country, but it is not unprecedented abroad. All the other applicant countries for Common Market entry have far more stringent safeguards than we do. I refer in particular to Norway and Denmark. The Norwegian Parliament passed a law, with the Common Market very much in mind, requiring a 75 per cent. majority of the Members approving entry. In that case there would first have to be a consultative referendum of the electorate. In Denmark the constitution provides for powers to be delegated to international authorities by statute, but only if five-sixths of the Danish Members of Parliament agree. If there is no majority in Parliament of that size, then the matter must go again to the Danish electorate for a referendum vote. I am not very much impressed by arguments for referenda on special issues. But entry into the Common Market is no ordinary matter. It is an issue of momentous importance.
I would remind the House of the voting when the Treaty of Rome was ratified in 1957. The votes in the Six in favour were as follows. In Germany, in the Bundestag, the overwhelming show of hands was estimated at about 400 of the 497 Deputies present. In Italy, in the Chamber of Deputies, the voting was 311 to 144, and in the Senate by a clear show of hands. In Luxembourg, in the Chamber of Deputies, the voting was 46 to 3; in Belgium, in the Chamber of Representatives, 174 to 4, and in the Senate 134 to 2. In the Netherlands, in the Lower House of the States-General, the voting was 114 to 12 and in the Upper House 46 to 5. The voting in the French National Assembly was 341 to 235. It is fair to say that France has not been the best advertisement for Common Market unity since that time.
The question is whether it would be wise or justified to go into the Common Market if a substantial minority of this
256
House was opposed to entry? This is a view which would certainly be reflected in the country at large. Or should we not, in fact, go in only if we can do so with enthusiasm? If the latter is the case, then Parliament should be able to demonstrate that enthusiasm in a convincing fashion in the Lobbies, giving, to quote the Prime Minister, its full-hearted consent.
There is perhaps no precise way in which to measure enthusiasm, not even by using the metric system. But I suggest that this Bill would do so in an effective way. I hope that the Government might even accept my Bill, and I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has left the Chamber because it might even get the Government off a very difficult hook, and I am always anxious to be helpful to the Government.
4.7 p.m.
Mr. Angus Maude: In asking the House to reject the Motion, I wish to begin by saying that I am not moved by any enthusiasm for entry into the Common Market on any terms which it seems likely we shall secure. But it seems to me that, if the hon. Member presses the Motion to a Division, the House should not divide along lines dictated by individual feelings about whether we should go into the European Economic Community. This is a much more important matter than that.
I would ask the House to reject the Motion on two main grounds. First, that the Bill would be ineffective and therefore pointless. Secondly, that it will be dangerous to Parliament, wrong on constitutional grounds and would set a bad precedent. In regard to the effectiveness of the proposed Bill, if a Government either in this Parliament or a subsequent Parliament thought that they had a sufficient majority, a simple majority, to justify their recommending to the House entry into Europe, would that Government be likely to boggle at putting on the Whips to repeal the hon. Member's Bill by a simple majority—if he were lucky enough to get it through Parliament on a succession of ill-attended Friday sittings? Of course, they would not.

257
The only way the hon. Member could make the thing in the least effective would be by including a provision that the Bill could not be repealed except by a 66 per cent. majority of the House. That would be a proposition Parliament would never entertain, namely, that Parliament itself should be prevented from repealing in a subsequent Parliament one of its earlier Statutes, except by a given majority. If he does not do this, there is nothing to prevent a Government from simply repealing the Bill and proceeding to recommend terms of entry to the House which could then be imposed by a simple majority. That is the first and I feel almost conclusive reason for not accepting the Bill.
There are better reasons than the one I have outlined. One of them is that the Bill is unnecessary. The hon. Member is asking the House to accept a precedent to entrench certain constitutional powers, which we have never done, in respect of one particular issue. This cannot be right on any constitutional ground. I am not saying that there may not be arguments in present circumstances for entrenched powers. Indeed, I have sometimes thought that there was an argument for entrenching the powers, though not the constitution, of the Second Chamber to guard against an overwhelming majority in this House seeking to change the constitution to a significant extent. But when I have looked at the matter I have seen that the difficulties of attempting to bind subsequent Parliaments are almost overwhelming. If one is to go for entrenched powers at all, one inevitably comes to the conclusion that one must go all the way to a written constitution involving all the procedures of entrenched powers and/or referendum. One must look at the matter as a whole.
It would be intolerable to introduce a provision to entrench a particular decision of this House in respect of one issue and one issue alone. The precedent would be extremely dangerous because thereafter there would be continual pressure to do the same thing on other issues of diminishing importance until, finally, proposals would be put before us to entrench majorities in respect of every Bill or proposal brought before the House.
258
The last point is that the Bill, apart from being ineffective, constitutionally dangerous and wrong, is unnecessary. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during the election campaign—and I agree with him and was delighted to hear him say it—that it would be impossible for any Government to take this country into the Common Market unless there were a significant majority of people in this country in favour of it. Any rational politician knows this to be true. It would be impossible to carry entry into the Common Market through both Houses of Parliament on a narrow majority, or even a majority of 30 or 40 votes. It was impossible for Neville Chamberlain to carry on a war with a majority of 80 in this House. Are we suggesting that it is more important for Parliament to fix the majorities by which it should approve entry into the Common Market than those by which it should carry on or cease to fight a war? The plain fact is that on political grounds alone every hon. Member knows that in a democracy we are safe because no Government could do something if the people were strongly against it.
Everyone knows that the proposal which the hon. Member is bringing before the House would be futile, pointless, and would not work. I think that every parliamentarian knows that the constitutional precedent would be dangerous.
Let us not be swayed by the argument that it would be all right to let the hon. Gentleman get a First Reading and then debate it at leisure on Second Reading, perhaps on an ill-attended Friday. This argument is sometimes valid for unimportant or minor Bills. On a matter of this kind I believe it to be essential that the House of Commons should say now by a large majority that it is not prepared to have the constitution tinkered with in a piecemeal way like this. I ask the House to reject the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and negatived.

NORTHERN IRELAND
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
4.11 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): It is my task today to open the debate on Northern Ireland. I think I am right in recalling that the genesis of this debate was the resignation of Major Chichester-Clark and the formation of a subsequent Government by Mr. Brian Faulkner.
It is right for me in opening the debate to pay tribute, which I am sure the whole House will echo, to Major Chichester-Clark for the work he did as Prime Minister, for the integrity, the courage and the endurance with which he carried a burden which must at times have been almost insupportable.
I should also like to pay my personal tribute to him for the unfailing courtesy, friendliness and frankness with which all our talks and discussions were conducted. I believe that he served the people of his country very well indeed.
Northern Ireland is fortunate to have Mr. Brian Faulkner available to take the leadership of the Government. He is a man of quality, of competence, and of very considerable political and parliamentary experience.
The fact that there is a new Government in Northern Ireland does not mean a change of policies either there or here, and Mr. Faulkner has made it very clear from the beginning that this is the way he looks at the situation. But any change of Government and of leadership, though it does not necessarily mean a change of policies, brings with it a new impetus and a new atmosphere. Therefore, I think it is a very good opportunity for the House today to review the situation as it is at present in Northern Ireland, looking, I hope, dispassionately and clearly at both the good and the bad features of the scene there.
It is a rapidly changing scene, and the pressures mount and fall very rapidly, very erratically and very unpredictably. Recently, in the last two weeks, there has been a lull, though a lull in Northern Ireland terms is very different from what it would be in this country. There are
260
still bomb outrages, and preparations going on, and the Army, I am happy to say, is pressing on with its discovery and impounding of arms. Though there have not been in recent weeks the kind of outrages of a short time ago, no one can tell from one day to the next what will happen. The psychological pressure, therefore, on everyone in Northern Ireland, particularly on the politicians of all parties there, is very severe, and we in this House have a clear duty to recognise that in all that we say and do about Northern Ireland.
We need to recognise, first, the urgency of the problems of law and order and economic activity. These are the two really urgent problems in Northern Ireland. At the same time, I think that we must try to keep a steady view of the long-term prospects and trends and try not to be led aside at any time by short-term developments from our long-term goal. Without the advancement of law and order nothing else is possible. I think that it is clear, and I am sure that it will be accepted everywhere, that this is the first and overriding problem, but it is intermingled with the economic problem.
There is a vicious circle here. More trouble on the streets, more fighting and violence, means less investment in the economy. That means less employment, and less employment means the opportunity of and the temptation to commit further violence. There is a vicious circle here which must be broken. I think that it can only be broken by a combination of dealing with the law and order problem and strengthening the prospects and opportunities of economic development.
The long-term objective is clear—to see a return of life in Northern Ireland to the normal tenor and custom of the United Kingdom as a whole with reconciliation and good will between all the communities there.
Let us look at recent developments in Northern Ireland. I should like, first, to mention the progress of the reform programme to which Major Chichester-Clark made such an enormous contribution. I do not think that it is recognised quite as fully as it should be how much has already been done in Northern Ireland. Legislation was passed in 1969

261
creating a full franchise on the basis of one-man, one-vote in local government elections. There has been the appointment of a Boundary Commissioner, the setting up of a housing executive which will be responsible, as sole housing authority, for the implementing of Government policy on housing, the establishment of a Ministry of Community Relations with responsibility for formulating policies for the improvement of community relations, the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner and a Commissioner for Complaints.
It is very encouraging, when we look at the reports of the Commissioners, to see that they had many complaints made to them, quite a number of which were found to be justified; but on no occasion, so far as I know, did either the Parliamentary Commissioner or the Commissioner for Complaints find that a complaint of sectarian bias or discrimination had been justified. I think that the people and the Government of Northern Ireland are entitled to take a great deal of credit from these findings.
There has also been the implementation of the Hunt Committee recommendations converting the Royal Ulster Constabulary from a paramilitary police force into an unarmed police service more closely resembling the other police forces of the United Kingdom. It is immensely important to maintain it and to get the same type of policing in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom and the closest co-operation at all times between the various police forces of the country.
Mr. Faulkner in his speech at Stormont on 30th March listed these reforms: the universal franchise, machinery for impartial redrawing of district and ward boundaries, the establishment of the two Commissioners, the Community Relations Commission, the Londonderry Development Commission, the Central Housing Executive and a points scheme for housing allocation, a plan for reorganising local government, and a civilianised police service. He added:
"… there will be no going back on these Measures. I was a party to them in the last Administration because I believed them to be right. My change of office has in no way changed my views."
262
That was a forthright and clear declaration which was supported by the whole of his Cabinet.
Mr. Paul B. Rose: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the points system for housing is to be mandatory or whether it is merely to be permissive for the local authorities?
Mr. Maudling: The point is that there is a central housing authority which will ensure a complete absence of any discrimination or any charge of discrimination. I shall give the hon. Gentleman an answer to the specific point in the course of the debate.
I turn now to law and order. Here again I think it is right to record that there has been some progress in one way, but a going back in another. The progress can be seen from the fact that communal or sectarian strife on the streets is much less. Demonstrations have been smaller when they have taken place, and the Army has been having increasing successes both in arresting rioters and finding arms. The improvement in the basic riot situation has led to the more recent development of the violent and criminal activity of murder and terror which is now the main problem of law and order. It is a different problem from that which existed some months ago. It is no less deadly or dastardly.
The economic situation has shown a deterioration and, in a way, I find it surprising how well the Northern Ireland economy has stood up to this problem. The absence of sectarian strife in some of the big industrial plants, to which both management and trade unions make a big contribution and which helped the Northern Ireland economy to stand up to great difficulties under pressure is plainly to he seen. As against all this evidence is the way in which the proportion of new investment coming from outside Northern Ireland has fallen drastically in the last year or so. This is a trend which we must consider very seriously.
What measures are needed? I deal first with law and order. The tension and strife on the streets has been lessening and the Army is becoming more effective and more experienced. It has been getting better weapons for crowd control and I am sure that it has been improving its tactics. This has helped

263
to reduce the problem. There has been a growing realisation of the utter folly of the senseless rioting and how little good it does anyone. I believe that the exploitation of children at some stage in the riots created a feeling of revulsion throughout Northern Ireland and, in a strange way, has contributed to bringing about an improvement in the situation.
But now we have the all-out terrorist campaign to deal with. I have said before in the House, and I say again, that violence is not confined to one side. There are many sources of violence. But at present the main and most dangerous threat comes from the I.R.A., whose members make no secret of the fact that they organise, train and equip people for the purposes of using force in Northern Ireland politics. They make no secret of that, and I see no reason why we should not say so. There is a great problem for any Army operating in support of the civil power. There are complicated legal problems. Great responsibility rests on men, often so young, in situations of great tragedy and great personal danger. They have to make decisions, take action and show a sense of restraint and responsibility which many much older men would be entitled to envy. I am immensely impressed, as I think everyone is, with the performance of our soldiers in these very difficult times.
I think that there is no doubt that the objectives of the I.R.A. forces are threefold. They want to create chaos—social, economic and political—in Northern Ireland as a means of advancing towards what they believe, no doubt sincerely, to be the right solution for the country. Secondly they want to provoke acts of revenge or repression and to give the impression that the security forces are not merely rooting out people who are guilty of armed crime but are trying to retaliate against whole sections of the community. Thirdly, I am sure that they want to weary the British people and our Parliament of the problem in the vain hope that we may be driven to abandon our responsibility. They will not succeed in any of these objectives. I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said the other day, that an end
264
to this type of terrorist campaign comes only when the people themselves recognise that they will not succeed.
I have referred to the remarkable restraint of members of the Army. Their task is to handle the situation on the ground. The job of Government is to give the Army and its commanders a proper directive, proper authority and adequate resources and ensure that it gets on with the job with the full support of all people of good will. I do not think there can be any doubt on any of these three scores. The directive to the Army is clear—to act in support of the civil power in every way necessary, to maintain public order, and to frustrate and arrest criminals who are breaking the law.
In their activities to this end there is no restraint on the tactics which members of the Army should use other than that they must obviously operate within the law, and the law provides that the Army must never use more than the minimum amount of force required. There is sometimes a misunderstanding about this. Some people say that this is a political doctrine. It is nothing of the sort. It is the law of the land. It is the Army's duty to use all the force necessary to maintain law and order and arrest criminals, but it must not overstep the mark at any time—it will be in breach of the law if it did—or go beyond using the minimum force necessary for its purposes. With the forces now available in Northern Ireland, the Army has resources in men and equipment which it regards as adequate for the task it has in hand.
Army activity is being constantly stepped up, as the House will have seen from reports in the newspapers, and the latest directive from the G.O.C. is part of the process, not only of introducing new policies, but of intensifying existing ones and ensuring a more effective response and more thorough searching and stop-checking and seeking out and catching the people who have the arms. There is no disagreement between the two Governments on this point. I should again like to quote Mr. Faulkner who, having examined the military and police instructions, said that he was
"absolutely satisfied … that nothing is inhibiting them from taking action, however firm, which in their professional judgment would

265
contribute to the ultimate defeat of terrorism in this community"
That is Mr. Faulkner's view. It is equally the view of the Government here.
The Army needs support in these matters, and it works very closely with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose contribution should command the admiration of the House because of the difficulties under which it is operating, the restraint it shows and the weight that it carries on its shoulders. The Army and the R.U.C. work closely together in all areas.
I should say something about the so-called "no go" areas. There is an impression, a false one, that the police do not or cannot operate in these areas. I have checked on this matter very carefully because the House should know the facts. The police, in uniform and in plain clothes, operate in all the so-called "no go" areas throughout the 24 hours. In some areas, after dark, patrols in uniform are accompanied, if necessary, by the military. It is the military's job to provide support to the civil police when they ask for it. Patrolling is, I admit, on a lower scale than is desirable in many areas owing simply to the calls on police manpower for security duties.
However, the policing of the so-called "no go" areas is better now than it was even before the outbreak of trouble in 1969. In agreement with the Northern Ireland Government, we have been following a deliberate policy of using the Army to support the police to return to undertaking proper activities in these areas. I am told that R.U.C. beat men and mobile patrols are operating in all areas and have no difficulty in serving summonses, executing warrants or making inquiries or arrests in connection with day-to-day crimes. I have been given figures for each area comparing the number of foot patrols and mobile patrols in operation now with the number in operation before the riots of 1969, and in every case there are more patrols now than there were before the riots of 1969. I hope that I have been able to make it clear that some of the ideas about the so-called "no go" areas are not based on facts.
The second point about support for the Army is the need for more intelligence. This is obviously a very difficult subject
266
which I cannot deal with in detail now, but I assure the House that the Government are well aware of the need for good intelligence in this problem. It is difficult to get intelligence from certain areas where a good deal of intimidation exists and where the so-called wall of silence must be penetrated. We are giving every help to the Northern Ireland Government from every possible source.
I should like to refer to the C.I.D. men from Scotland Yard who have gone to Northern Ireland. They went there at the request of the R.U.C., which was very stretched and which asked for their help in the investigation of particular cases of murder. They are there only for those purposes. They are helping the R.U.C. in detecting, I hope successfully, perpetrators of certain particularly vicious crimes, and they have been given the necessary constabulary powers to enable them to operate.
I repeat what we have said on more than one occasion. There is no contemplation of sending uniformed police to Northern Ireland, and before any question of such a move should arise there would be full consultation with the Police Federation and others.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the "no go" areas are as well and thoroughly policed as other parts of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Maudling: I did not say that. I deliberately said that the policing was not up to what we would like ideally because of the shortage of manpower. The areas are policed by day and night and the number of patrols operating in the same areas is greater than it was before the riots in 1969. That is the position that I have just confirmed with the security authorities.
I come next to one or two other suggestions which have been made and rejected by Mr. Faulkner, as they would be by the Government here. The first concerns the general rearming of the police. Mr. Faulkner is not proposing that, I think that he is wise in that decision. It is sometimes thought that the Hunt Report recommended no arms for the police. In fact, that is not so. In paragraph 102, the Committee recommended that the firearms retained should be revolvers, rifles, gas pistols and gas

267
grenades, and that they should be kept at selected police stations and issued when required. The Committee also thought that it should be clear that the issue of firearms should be restricted to personnel on mobile or detective duties or the protection of police stations.
This is the policy being followed by the Government of Northern Ireland in providing pistols for use on special, dangerous assignments, and it is entirely inside the framework of the Hunt Committee's recommendations.
Secondly, the call sometimes comes for the restoration of the "B" Specials—
Mr. Simon Mahon: There are at the moment 69,000 licensed guns in Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends say that there are 73,000. They are licensed, obviously. But there are other guns which are unlicensed. Can we have some information about who owns those licensed guns, at least? It must be readily available. Is not there a policy of a wink and a nod in Northern Ireland and in Dublin about the possession of arms?
Mr. Maudling: I intend to come to that point later on. I agree that it is very important.
I wanted to talk about the "B" Specials. I think that it would be wrong and retrograde to talk of restoring the "B" Specials. It must be a principle in the United Kingdom that, where armed forces are needed in support of the civil power, they should be the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom. That is a principle with which I am sure this House will agree. That is why the Army is there in such strength at present.
The third point is internment, about which there has been discussion. It is a power which exists and resides in the Government at Stormont under the Special Powers Act, but there is an understanding that they will not employ that power without consultation with the Government here.
I believe, as I have said already outside this House, that this is more a decision of practice than of principle. Internment is a hideous step to have to take,
268
but it is no more hideous than a campaign of murder. Therefore, we should assess whether it would make a contribution to the cessation of the campaign.
So far, all the advice that the Government has received and accepted from the security authorities is that, in practice, the use of internment would be counterproductive and would not help towards our objective. That is still the view of the Northern Ireland Government and of this Government. It is essentially based on practical considerations which seem fairly clear.
Those are the three suggestions sometimes put forward which are not being adopted by the Northern Ireland Government.
Then on the question of firearms, to which reference has been made, figures are used of something like 70,000 certificates, or possibly a little over, which is a very large number, though I have been checking with other parts of the United Kingdom such as the West Country, Devon and Cornwall, and East Anglia, and I find that the ratio of certificates to population is about the same as it is in Northern Ireland.
The vast majority are shotguns, and most are possessed in the countryside. Having made that point, I can see that any reduction in the number of firearms would be very good, and I think that the House is probably aware that such a move was initiated by Major Chichester-Clark, when he ordered the chief constable to go through all the licences for firearms. That is now being carried out under Mr. Faulkner's authority, with the idea that people should not possess firearms unless they could show a substantial reason for doing so. That is right, and I hope to see that an effective procedure.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I think that the point which the right hon. Gentleman has just made should not be allowed to slip away without being more fully examined. The right hon. Gentleman said that guns should only be held if there was a substantial reason for holding them. Can the right hon. Gentleman enlarge upon the criteria which are to be laid down for "substantial"?
Mr. Maudling: No. That is within the competence of the Northern Ireland Government. The principle that they have laid down is that there should be shown a real need for holding these weapons. It is for them to decide how it should be applied. I have never found anyone disposed to disagree that the possession of large numbers of firearms, especially in urban areas, is not likely to contribute to the chance of law and order.
I come, then, to processions. We are approaching the procession season. The House will be aware that there was a complete ban on processions for some time, and that it lapsed on 31st January. Now we shall see from both communities and other groups as well a return to processions as the traditional times come around. It is my hope that people will hearken to the warning and appeal of Mr. Faulkner and ensure that processions are conducted in a way which will not give rise to immediate danger to law and order.
It was right of Mr. Faulkner to urge people that, while he wants to preserve the right of free association and procession as much as possible, that, like other rights, can be abused where a procession is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Clearly the authorities are entitled first of all to limit their activities, to reroute their processions or, if necessary, in the last resort to impose a ban on them. I am clear that in these matters Mr. Faulkner, like his predecessor, is trying to hold the right and just balance between the entitlement of people wishing to demonstrate their political views by peaceful means and the importance of not allowing peaceful demonstrations to spill over into the sort of violence which all too often appears on these occasions in Northern Ireland.
I have been dealing mainly with law and order and related problems. I want to come now to the economic situation. As I said, it is a vicious circle that fighting and violence push the economy down and that pushing the economy down encourages violence. We have been disturbed by the run-down in the inflow of new investment from other countries. It was in recognition of this situation that the Northern Ireland Government worked out, in consultation with us, the new system of capital
270
allowances which are, for tax purposes, as applied in Great Britain but which, in addition, provide for capital grants at the rate of 20 per cent. for new plant and machinery and 35 per cent. on new buildings. Grants up to 20 per cent. higher will be payable on new projects providing additional employment. Northern Ireland is preserving a substantial differential over any area of high unemployment in the United Kingdom. They should be entitled to preserve that differential in view of the acute and difficult problems that they have to face. In addition, the Government have provided substantial help. With immediate agreement when we became the Government, we confirmed our predecessor's agreement for an additional £75 million for the development programme, assistance with Harland and Wolff, and so on.
The time has come, nevertheless, to re-examine with the Northern Ireland Government whether the development programme is rightly organised and shaped to meet the situation which has developed in the months since it was first set in train. As a result of Mr. Faulkner's visit, we are to set up a joint study group between the two Governments to go into the status of the development programme and see what can be done to improve it or hasten it further forward.
Finally on the economic situation, I am glad to see some possibility of more cooperation across the border between the two Governments. There is already more co-operation in economic matters than is sometimes realised, in tourism and the electricity industry, for example. Both the Governments seem to realise the advantages here, and I was glad to see that the new Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland is arranging for a visit of some of his officials on 20th April to discuss these matters with officials of the Dublin Government. All this should be encouraged as much as possible.
I have concentrated mainly on the law and order situation and the economic situation. These are the real interlinked problems of Northern Ireland. There is, I trust, complete agreement between the two Governments as to the right policies to be followed and the right way to go about carrying out those policies. There is a very wide measure of agreement between both sides on the objective and

271
the way in which we should go about achieving it. I am certain that the more we can show our united views in this matter and the more the two Governments can work obviously and closely together, the sooner we shall bring to the terrorists the disappointment and disheartenment which alone, in the long run, will bring their campaign to an end.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The House will want to thank the Home Secretary for the full and frank statement which he has made. The position of the Opposition on the issues covered in his speech was of course set out in the exchanges following the Prime Minister's statement on 22nd March. I said then that the Government were entitled to the full support of the House in the Prime Minister's insistence on maintaining the policies which two sucessive Governments and two successive Oppositions have maintained in seeking a reconciliation between the communities and the outlawing of violence, from wherever it may come, and, in particular, in maintaining the basis on which, within a week in August 1969, British troops were, first, deployed on a major scale in support of the civil power to maintain law and order, and, second, on 19th August to take over the supreme responsibility for security and the maintenance of order.
The basis on which that very grave and potentially dangerous decision was taken—it was a leap in the dark—was set out, first, in the Downing Street declaration of 19th August, published as Command Paper 4154, and subsequently in the changes which took place in the machinery for enforcing law and order, and especially those referred to by the Home Secretary, relating to the reorganisation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, following the report of the inquiry headed by Lord Hunt.
It is right that the House should be reminded of the conditions which were then agreed—not least because a fortnight ago, following the pressures which led to the fall of Major Chichester-Clark, there was then great anxiety that the new Stormont Government or the Government at Westminster, or both, might be pushed into policies which led to the partial or total abandonment of the steps
272
set out clearly in the Downing Street agreement and declaration. It is clear again from the Home Secretary's speech, as it was from the statement of the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, that that has not happened.
It is of course right and inevitable that we on this Bench should regard ourselves as the custodians of that declaration of August, 1969, but in a wider sense it was clear from the Prime Minister's statement that our successors equally, rightly, so regard themselves, and they of course have the operational responsibilities today for ensuring that its provisions are safeguarded and made effective.
It is right, too, that just as right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were in Opposition, throughout that period of acute danger and in the months which followed, maintained a constructive bipartisan approach to this question—one can see in retrospect what dangers might have followed if that had not been so, as one factional interest or another might have sought to make capital out of inter-party differences in this House —the present Opposition's position should also be made clear.
As long as Her Majesty's Government unequivocally maintain in the spirit and the letter the terms of the Downing Street declaration and the actions taken in pursuance of it, my right hon. and hon. Friends will give them our full support. The Government can go forward in the difficult path they have to tread—they have the right to ask this—with a united House behind them. Only if they were to begin to depart, either in word or in action, from that declaration should we feel it our duty to oppose them.
It is not only this House which is involved. Hon. Members will have noted that in the entirely helpful statements made by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic during that anxious weekend two weeks ago—the statements he made both in America and on his return to Eire—Mr. Lynch based himself too on his confidence that the terms and spirit of the Downing Street declaration would continue to be honoured.
It is right, since I am speaking seeking to assert an approach in this House which was tragically absent in the divisions of 60 years ago in this House and in the

273
agonies of 50 years ago, that I should remind the House of the terms of the declaration which is and I am confident remains the basis of an all-party approach in this House.
First, the declaration of 19th August, 1969, reaffirmed that the crisis in Northern Ireland did not involve any derogation from pledges by successive United Kingdom Governments, notably by Lord Attlee in 1949, that Northern Ireland should not cease to be a part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and that there would be no derogation from the provision governing this question in Section 1 of the Ireland Act, 1949. To quote the actual words of the declaration, paragraph 1, "The Border is not an issue".
Second, while repeating that responsibility for domestic affairs in Northern Ireland was a matter for Stormont's domestic jurisdiction, the declaration went on to say that the Westminster Government had to deal with all international relationships. Let me repeat that, on all matters affecting human rights —one thinks particularly of the Special Powers Act—it is the Government responsible to this House, and therefore it is this House itself, which has to defend in the name of the United Kingdom as a whole, any action which may be taken within any part of the United Kingdom which is derogatory to any internationally agreed standards of human rights. We have to carry the can internationally in this matter.
Third, we asserted the ultimate responsibility of the United Kingdom for the protection of those in Northern Ireland who would be at risk when a breakdown of law and order occurred, and, in that context and, as long as the danger lasted, the assumption by our forces there of the law and order responsibility from August 1969 until law and order is again restored.
Fourth—I am still setting out the terms of contract under which British troops were put in to take charge of the responsibility for law and order—in accordance with that responsibility, it was asserted that the Northern Ireland Government's undertaking to take into the fullest account the views of Her Majesty's Government should be recognised, including the equal rights and protection under the
274
law of citizens in that part of the United Kingdom.
The fifth article dealt with reform, and in particular the commitments relating to local government franchise, the revision of local government areas, the allocation of houses and the appointment of an Ombudsman to consider and report on citizens' grievances against other public authorities. This reform programme, initiated by Captain O'Neill's Government, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said today, carried a long way along the road by Major Chichester-Clark's Administration, not least—this should be said—by Mr. Faulkner, not only as Deputy Prime Minister but also as Minister of Development departmentally responsible for much of the legislation, remains a binding commitment on the Northern Ireland Government and Parliament under the declaration.
Equally binding on this and any future Northern Ireland Government is the wide range of issues coming within the ambit of the sixth paragraph of the declaration, which lays down:
"The two Governments at their meeting at 10 Downing Street today have reaffirmed that in all legislation and executive decisions of Government every citizen of Northern Ireland is entitled to the same equality of treatment and freedom from discrimination as obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom, irrespective of political views or religion. In their further meetings, the two Governments will be guided by these mutually accepted principles."
The seventh and final paragraph reiterated the joint determination, which is as far from realisation today as it was then, to take all possible steps to restore normality to the Northern Ireland community, so that economic development can proceed at a faster rate—that faster rate which is vital for social stability. None can dispute the damage which continued violence and communal strife and suspicion have wrought and are wreaking on vitally necessary economic development in Northern Ireland.
I have reminded the House of these commitments of August, 1969, because they are binding today, because they and they alone provide the basis on which Northern Ireland can attain peace and progress, and because their total fulfilment, in letter and in spirit, is the prerequisite of the consensus and the unity in this House which are necessary to provide leadership to the people of Northern

275
Ireland, to discourage, to deter and ultimately to destroy a further outbreak of factionalism and violence in Northern Ireland. That I feel confident that this will be achieved in this House by this House is due to the fact that nothing the Home Secretary said today, and nothing the Prime Minister said 15 days ago, appears to derogate from what we, all parties, have mutually agreed.
I go further. On the vital issue of the measures that are necessary to maintain security and law and order, I interpret the Prime Minister as underlining in his statement a fortnight ago the concept which we followed and which it is more than ever essential should be followed now, for the right hon. Gentleman said:
"The United Kingdom Government, who have the ultimate authority and responsibility for Northern Ireland, will give their fullest support to any Government there which cooperates in implementing the policies which we judge right for those purposes."
It will be within the recollection of the House that whereas HANSARD could not, of course, italicise the word "we"—and by "we" he meant the United Kingdom Government—the oral emphasis with which the right hon. Gentleman pronounced that word was a clear warning that in all matters affecting security and the deployment and demeanour of British troops there the decisions of the British Government must remain paramount.
The Home Secretary set out the facts, as he sees them, of the present situation in the Province. It is right in a debate such as this that I should draw attention to some of the basic issues. First,as he said, there is the fact of violence—deliberate, calculated and unreasoning violence—and its eradication is an essential condition to any future for Northern Ireland.
The problem for Northern Ireland—for the security authorities and for the British troops—is that it is increasingly difficult to assess the origin and motives of some of this violence. Old-style I.R.A. activity aimed, however hopelessly, at uniting Ireland by force, which has been repudiated both in this House and south of the Border, we can evaluate, however much we deplore it. But some of this violence, be it by I.R.A. regulars—if I may describe them as such—or I.R.A. provisionals, defies analysis.
Some of it seems to owe its loyalty and being to a more internationally inspired
276
resort to violence, having no specific relevance to Northern Ireland or to the rest of Ireland, but to violence almost for its own sake, for the destruction of almost any organised system of economic or political system of society—democratic capitalist, Socialist or even traditional Communist.
Secondly, there is the fact of suspicion and fear, never far from hatred, arising from factional and religious differences and which have found practical expression in the too-long delayed reforms in civil and human rights—until wise and far-sighted men, not without pressure from Westminster and, indeed, from this House, have sought to catch up with the legacy of 50 years in a situation in which not 50 months are available.
Nobody in this debate, conscious that too many people in competing and hostile factions in Northern Ireland are living in the past, will want to jog back unduly. However, I cannot forbear to mention that the situation we face today could have been entirely different if that sixth article of the Downing Street declaration, laying claim on behalf of all the citizens of Northern Ireland to the same rights to equality of treatment and freedom from discrimination as their fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom, had been asserted by the Stormont and Westminster Governments in the 40-odd years before 1969 and had become the inspiration of government and local government for a generation. While we must be utterly firm in the assertion of this principle for the future, we cannot, in recalling the past, change the past. Nor should we try to do so.
Thirdly, there is the fact I have mentioned of too many of Northern Ireland's citizens living in the past, and a past long dead. One reason for restraint in this debate—and the Home Secretary hinted delicately at it—is the fact that we are within a few days of the Easter marchers, when the events of Easter 1916 will be commemorated in a world, and an Ireland, radically different from 55 years ago, but when the very recall of those events can import new dangers into that modern world.
If this is true, how can we condone the no less grotesque and provocative behaviour of grown men dressing up in regalia and gewgaws as they identify themselves with their teenage heroes of

277
300 years ago, the Apprentice Boys of Derry?
The best contribution that those in Northern Ireland who proclaim loyalty to the British Crown could make today would be to recognise that they live in the reign—and, let us face it, under the protection—of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and not in that of his late Majesty King William III, and those opposed to them should equally recognise that they are living in 1971 and not in 1916 or in 1798. [HON. MEMBERS: "1698" Perhaps we had better get back to the twentieth century.
In this situation we must consider, if only to reject, the alternative to the course which at this time both major parties in this House believe that we must follow. There is the alternative of a unilateral declaration of independence, a course which Captain O'Neill, now Lord O'Neill of Maine, specifically and in terms rejected when he sacked Mr. Craig from his Government.
An Orange U.D.I. would be a deliberate act of desperation—more an act of treason—which would have to be met by the full force of resistance by the Imperial Government and Parliament. It would be a U.D.I. in a country in which there are British troops—in a country with a coastline, which few in this House would shrink from the implications of meeting.
Then there is the alternative of direct rule; the alternative of last resort. The Government of which I was the head would have said of direct rule that it was the last thing we would have considered, and I believe that this is the position of the present Government. But in the last resort we would have had to consider it. It is, of course, fully consistent with Section 75 of the 1920 Act, which reserves to this Parliament in Westminster the final decision, because that Section says that nothing in the 1920 Act derogates from the authority of this House in these matters.
It is right that the House should know that, in consideration of this matter, the former Government drafted a Bill, in case of necessity, to impose direct rule, and that Bill is now in the possession of the present Government. I pray, as they do, that it will not be needed. However, if constitutional government in Northern
278
Ireland were to perish as a result of atavistic pressures and prejudices, this House must not shrink from imposing this unpalatable solution.
It is the ultimate deterrent. The purpose of a deterrent is to deter, and the credibility of any deterrent must be a clear willingness to make it effective when reason has failed. In the last resort, which we all hope will be avoided, I believe that that willingness would be unequivocal.
Another alternative sometimes put forward is that of abdication, of withdrawal. Because in any situation a Government must consider every option, I instructed when in Government, that a study be made of this alternative. I must tell the House that the results of that study—I am sure that this is in conformity with the instincts of every hon. Member—confirmed that it was a totally unacceptable alternative.
As the House will recognise, withdrawal because of a breakdown of the law would mean condemning 1½ million of our fellow citizens in the United Kingdom to living outside the law, a prey to anarchy and ultimately to oppression, no matter from where that oppression might arise.
Equally, this House cannot accept the lesser withdrawal, the withdrawal of British troops—as long as they are needed —in a situation in which Northern Ireland remains juridically part of the United Government. The present Government have said, as we said, that the troops must remain as long as they are needed, because the Queen's peace is the inalienable right of every citizen in this Kingdom.
So there is no easy way out except sweating it out until reason and wiser Counsels prevail. And there can be no solution until the reforms envisaged in the Downing Street declaration guarantee equal rights under the law for every one in the Province. And if the troops remain, they can remain only on the same conditions that governed their entry 20 months ago.
What we cannot sanction, whatever pressures we may face, or the Government may face, are proposals that the troops should be employed in a situation in which they take or can be fairly represented as taking sides. They went

279
to do one job: they did not go as agents for any particular form of political or sectarian pressure. On this we insisted, and on this, as I interpreted the Prime Minister's statement, the present Government are insisting. The troops must be, and will be—and I was reassured again by what the right hon. Gentleman said today—vigorous and unrelenting in tracking down subversion, violence, the threat of murder and the fact of murder. The Government, or the Prime Minister, insisted in consultation with the Stormont Government, and acting on the wise advice of the Army authorities, on Westminster having the last word, surrendering neither to pressures nor to panic nor to prejudice.
There was much comment in the crisis a fortnight ago about the alleged need for the Army to set up posts in Catholic areas to root out terrorism. It is my belief, and I take it from the Prime Minister's statement and the Home Secretary's speech today, that it is the Government belief, too, that the Army authorities will enter any area where there is any reason to think that an armed threat occurs, but there is a danger that the pressures for them to set up isolated minigarrisons would quickly mean that they would become isolated, beleagured posts. There is the fear, too, that at least some of those who suggest this particular form of employment of the troops are seeking a confrontation between the troops and the local population, a suggestion which can only have political motives. The Government will have our full support in resisting these pressures from whatever source they may derive.
Going back to the statement a fortnight ago, I was glad that the Prime Mnister concurred when I asked him to resist the arming of the Royal Ulster Constabulary —and I was glad that this was confirmed again by the Home Secretary today—and, above all, to resist the reconstitution of the B Specials. I believe that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are right about this, and the Prime Minister made it clear then, and the Home Secretary rather confirmed it today, I am sure, that Major Chichester-Clark had not asked for it, nor I am sure, will Mr. Faulkner. In the short term it would be a dangerous expedient: in the long term it would inhibit the establishment of one
280
of Northern Ireland's greatest needs—a citizen and not a quasi-military police force. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of it as para-military. What is wanted is a force of "bobbies", not a gendamerie.
The three very distinguished police chiefs whom we sent over to report in August, 1969—and it is noteworthy, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that following their report and the Hunt Report, legislation passed last year now enables police officers to go freely from any force in Britain for service there—reported to me personally that in their view a police force which was part of the community and not apart from the community was the biggest need in Northern Ireland.
More hopefully, they reported that there were within the junior and middle ranks of the R.U.C., especially in the younger generation, keen and efficient officers who, in their words, were knocking on the door of policemanship. This we must encourage, and the Hunt reforms were designed to create a police force which is genuinely part of the community—not a race set apart, feared by some, hated by some, still less an arm of the Government in that area. On this there must be no going back.
There are two proposals which we on this side of the House would further urge for consideration. One, and this was dealt with in part by the right hon. Gentleman's statement this afternoon, I put to the Prime Minister and he agreed to give it urgent thought. This would be a ban on all privately held arms subject, as I suggested, to stringently licensed authority for people in remote rural areas; appropriate provision for farmers to possess appropriate weapons. Outside that, the Government should come to the conclusion that the possession of private arms should be forbidden.
It is a freedom to possess private arms under licence but it is a freedom which in the present state of trigger happy Northern Ireland must be suspended. It is a freedom to form and to join rifle clubs, and Northern Ireland has more than its share of them, but it is not an inalienable human right, and recent history suggests that this particular freedom should await calmer days. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the final

281
decision must be taken by the Stormont Government, but they are under pressures which the United Kingdom Government are not under, and this Government should press it upon the Stormont Government.
If such a law were made it would have to be enforced ruthlessly and without discrimination, and it would then immensely ease the task of the forces and of other security services in searching for and confiscating arms, whoever might hold them, because if arms were found they would be illegal arms. It would help them to ensure that strict penalties were enforced against those who retained them. I hope that before long the House will be informed that action on these lines is being taken.
The second suggestion I want to make —the House will have seen this advocated recently in the Guardian—is of an economic character. The immediate prospects of private economic development in Northern Ireland are circumscribed by the consequences of disorder, and the fear of disorder. In these circumstances, where private activity is limited the case for public enterprise in the shape of rapidly expanded public works projects is undeniable and urgent. This would provide immediate work for the workers, and it would help to reduce the bitterness and frustration which unemployment contributes to an already bitter and, indeed, despairing situation. Properly directed, it could help to improve a desperately drab and, in too many areas, squalid environment.
Today we debate a situation which despite a welcome fortnight's respite is vulnerable and urgent. Certainly this is how it appeared when this debate was planned just two weeks ago, and I hope that a further debate conceived out of crisis will be long deferred; and that when we next debate Northern Ireland it will be against a background of continuing calm. But it is not too early now to be thinking of the longer term future, recognising as we must that only when we can think in those terms shall we be able to contemplate the economic development which is an essential prerequisite for the peace and progress we seek, all of us in this House.
Thought must be given to long-term constitutional developments for an
282
orderly and peaceful Northern Ireland. Before the events of July-August, 1969— I think that the House should know this—my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary was considering the calling of a constitutional conference at Lancaster House, representing not only all parties and interests in Northern Ireland, but, and I emphasise this, all parties in this House. That was his proposal. For the long term solution for Northern Ireland will be more acceptable, more enduring, to the extent that it rises above party considerations, either at Stormont or here at Westminster.
Too often in history have we seen the double feedback from Ireland to this country and from this House to Ireland, which has made an enduring future impossible. Recourse, not to reasoned discussion, as my right hon. Friend and I were then hoping, but to not and disturbance, in August, 1969, meant that this, I believe, quite hopeful concept had to be postponed, as it must still no doubt be postponed—and of course the House is also waiting the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, which was specifically enjoined to address itself to the constitutional problems of Northern Ireland. But—and I urge this on the Government—when that report is received, and when, as we all pray, conditions in Northern Ireland are conducive to constructive thinking about the future there will be everything to gain and nothing to lose, if that thinking, that discussion, takes place in an all-party conference, all parties here and all parties and relevant interests in Northern Ireland meeting together.
I have expressed the hope that we shall not soon be called upon to arrange a further emergency debate on Northern Ireland. If that hope is realised, it is all the more essential that the debate today looks beyond the immediate dangers to the possibilities and hopes ahead, and indeed, we can today, by our restraint and equally by our vision, help to bring a more hopeful situation into being. It is in our power to give assurance and to create hope.
We must make clear that the religion of no one in Northern Ireland is in danger. We must assert that the freedom of everyone who professes to be and calls himself a Christian to worship God in the way that he feels right is as assured in

283
Northern Ireland as anywhere else in this Realm.
Let us take heart from the fact that one of the most hopeful factors in Northern Ireland is that statesmanlike church leaders of all denominations there, from those possessing the highest authority to those who labour in the field of individual parishes, Protestant and Catholic, are at one with other men of good will to enjoin restraint and reconsideration on those who owe them loyalty. That is one of the hopeful features.
I am old enough to remember pre-war Merseyside, together with other hon. Members on both sides of the House, and to remember how the park railings used to be torn up for use as offensive weapons, by both sides, on 12th July and other marked dates in the Northern Ireland calendar. I have seen, as other hon. Members have rejoiced to see, how this has been changed on Merseyside by the inspiration and courage of such leaders as the late Archbishop Downey, of the Roman Catholic church, and Bishop Martin of the Church of England—not only by the fact of their leadership but by the fact that there were those ready to listen to them. And it is the willingness to listen to such men, and to follow them, that is lacking today in Northern Ireland. It is still to the voices of the past, and those who seek to evoke those voices for factional power, that too many ears are exclusively attuned.
Like Merseyside, Northern Ireland will have a future when age-old hostilities are expressed, not with guns or high explosives, but in the raucous cries such as those we can hear at Spion Kop, Goodison, and, if I may move north of the Border, Hampden as well. If there is a danger that the words of Abraham Lincoln, in a totally different situation, can be abused, the problem is not that Northern Ireland cannot live two-thirds Protestant and one-third Catholic; it is rather than Northern Ireland cannot survive with half its citizens—cutting right across factional lines—living in the past and half of them yearning for a very different future.
For there are those—probably far more than half—and, above all, among the young, in Northern Ireland who want to live in the 1970s and to plan for the
284
1980s and beyond. I have referred to one encouraging feature, the attitude of church leaders. I instance another, a public opinion poll, receiving far too little publicity, two years ago, which asked Ulster's youth to identify the causes which mattered most to them. The result of that poll showed their answer, unequivocally given, placing employment and housing first, and factional and religious differences a long way down the list. This judgment was made equally by Protestant and Roman Catholic young people. If intolerance is the hallmark of Ulster politics, I rejoice that Ulster's youth so clearly proclaimed their intolerance of intolerance. The question must be asked, indeed, how many of those politically active on either side in Northern Ireland are worthy of the young they seek to lead, when too many succeed only in trying to corrupt them.
In the exchanges which followed the Prime Minister's statement a fortnight ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) called on Unionist Members
"… to tell some of their colleagues in Northern Ireland to stop playing the fool and recognise the real position in this situation." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 42.]
The Prime Minister, while not associating himself with my right hon. Friend's actual choice of words, clearly associated himself with the thought. This was advice which the House has not only the right but the duty to commend to bigots on both sides in Northern Ireland. To some hon. Gentlemen opposite, can we not ask, with so many young Northern Irish men and women looking earnestly to the future, that they should cease trying to bemuse them and turn their minds to a dead past, by the invocation of the memories of the sash their fathers wore, and the canonisation of a long dead Dutchman? And equally, to others, have we not the right to ask them to stop stirring up verdant memories of long-dead Irish heroes? What Northern Ireland wants today, and needs today, and what the young people of Northern Ireland put first in their priorities today, are jobs, homes, democratic rights and faith in the future.
If I may address a conciliatory word, on his birthday, to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I

285
would say to him that some hon. Members, among whom I include myself, will be the readier to take religious instruction from the reverend doctor when he himself begins to preach the Christian doctrine of peace and reconciliation and when he himself begins to practise the Christian virtues of humility. There are hon. Members in this House who could contribute more to the future of Northern Ireland if they were not under pressure of the kind of grass roots which the hon. Gentleman commands.
In the crisis of August, 1969, when I accepted the advice of my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary, I said—and he will confirm this—that the posture of the British Government must be to show themselves firm, cool and, above all, fair. The whole House will agree that this was the posture that he was able to present to the people of Northern Ireland as Home Secretary, above all, in his demeanour when he visited Northern Ireland later in August, 1969, and met representatives of every party, every interest and every religious denomination.
I believe that his successor, the present Home Secretary, has conducted himself, in all his dealings with Northern Ireland, in the same spirit, and he has our full backing in so doing. I was disturbed to read, in the Press, reports of a private meeting within the precincts of this building, at which, if the reports were correct, he was under considerable criticism, which I believe, on his record, he was entitled not to expect. I hope that those reports, as not infrequently is the case with reports of private meetings within the Palace of Westminster, were inaccurate, or at least sensationalised—for, to the extent that they were believed outside, they can only have encouraged extremism and exacerbated the situation in Northern Ireland.
We must recognise—I make this appeal to all hon. Gentleman in all parts of the House—that if the right hon. Gentleman were to be under pressures here as well as unreasonable pressure from Northern Ireland which he has courageously resisted, no man could foretell what dangers may lie ahead.
Today the House has a clear duty. I end, as I began, by referring to the Prime Minister's statement of 22nd March. Our duty as a House, regardless of party, regardless above all of the dead voice
286
of the past, is to back this Government, to back any Government who unequivocally base their policies on the programme of reconcilation and reform and civil rights to which this country and Northern Ireland, through their then Governments, irrevocably set their hands in signing the Downing Street declaration of August, 1969.
5.20 p.m.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: I shall not directly follow the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, though he will find that much of what he said may well be covered in the course of my speech.
I very much share the right hon. Gentleman's hope—and I rather liked his note of hope—that this will be the last Northern Ireland debate called in an atmosphere of emergency. I refuse to be drawn into discussions about the relative merits of King William III or any other Irish hero—[Interruption.]—I am not sure that it would contribute very much to the efficacy of the debate.
However, although I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that we need to concentrate upon the future, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it might not be all that helpful to mock at reverence of the past. Often people revere their traditions. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman Lord Macaulay, apart from Abraham Lincoln, who said something to the effect that no community which did not take a pride in the exploits of its ancestors would have anything to leave to be looked back to with pride by its remote descendants.
The debate is the result of events which took place a fortnight ago. At that time I said to the Leader of the House, in view of what I called the grave turn of events in Northern Ireland, that we might well have to ask for a debate very soon.
What was the grave turn of events? At that time the then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland—Major Chichester-Clark—had not resigned. The new ingredient in the Northern Ireland situation was that there had been a very definite deterioration in ordinary public morale and confidence.
I suppose the matter came to a head with the awful, tragic death of the three Scottish soldiers. I do not think that anybody who does not live in Northern

287
Ireland can appreciate the sense of shock that went through the entire community as a result of that ghastly murder. The effect, coming on top of a very long period of civil strife in our capital city—we are a small community and the effects of events such as this are felt by everyone—was such that there occurred a distinct crisis of public confidence.
This was not a question of politicians. This was not a question of Right-wing or any other pressures. What happened was that the entire community suddenly appeared to lose confidence in the civil authority and the security forces. We reached a situation where the business community, people totally unpolitically attached, were suddenly beginning to ask, "How can this situation continue?" Investment was falling and becoming negligible. There was the expense of defending and protecting factories, the damage which was being done, the lack of business confidence generally. At the other end of the scale there was the very remarkable walk-out from Harland and Wolff of the shipyard workers, irrespective of creed and irrespective of politics—Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, Labour supporters and others. The sole cry was, "Can we not have order in our streets?"
Mr. H. J. Delargy: I do not intend to speak in the debate and I certainly do not wish to be provocative. May I point out that there is a widespread belief in this country—the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to be emphasising it—that three British soldiers were murdered by the I.R.A. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows as well as I do that that is not the belief in Ireland and that is not the belief in the Home Office. Not one of the persons who have been apprehended and questioned about this murder belongs to the I.R.A. This applies especially to the three men and the two women who were recently questioned. I say this because if the truth is twisted only harm can result.
Captain Orr: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, whose generous sense of responsibility in these matters I understand and pay tribute to. I did not say who had murdered anybody. I profoundly hope that the murderers of the
288
three Scottish soldiers will be found and brought to book. Then we shall know. I made no assertion as to who had murdered them. I said that the murder had created a profound sense of shock which had destroyed confidence throughout the community and that right across the whole spectrum of life in Ulster there was such a sense of outrage at the continuance of violence and disorder in our city that no administration could have survived it without some evidence of a strong political will to overcome it.
It was this which led myself and my hon. Friends to try to reflect that feeling in Ulster in the House and by any means open to us. Much has happened since we asked for that debate. We understand all the reasons why the debate did not take place just at that moment, and perhaps it is just as well in the event that it did not.
Things have moved on now. There has been a change of Government in Ulster. We have a new Prime Minister, We had the resignation of Major Chichester-Clark. I will not go into the circumstances surrounding that resignation, save to say that one thing that Major Chichester-Clark did by his resignation was to underline and bring to pub-lice knowledge, here and elsewhere, the real gravity of the situation facing the community in Northern Ireland. In that sense he did a very great service.
We now have a new Prime Minister in Northern Ireland. From everything that he has said, from the energy and efficiency with which he has set about his new task, and above all from the note of optimism emanating from him, I believe that he deserves the support of us all.
What caused the crisis of confidence was the law and order situation. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for dealing so much with it, and I am grateful also to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for recognising, since it was one of the parts of the Downing Street declaration that people had an inalienable right—to use his words, I think—to the Queen's peace, that this is what was being demanded in Northern Ireland. Every effort having been made to carry out everying else in the Downing Street declaration people said, "What about the other side of the bargain? Are we getting that or are we not?".

289
One of the remarkable developments is that there has been a change in the military deployment, and there have been changes in the actual military directives. I believe that these changes have been in the right direction, and the proof of that is in some of the things which have happened on the ground. We are profoundly grateful that this has taken place.
At no time have I—certainly, speaking for myself—asked for a change in the overall policies. Apart from anything else, I do not believe that it would make practical sense. But what has always been asked for has been the effective use of the troops on the ground to bring the general state of disorder to an end as rapidly as possible.
The new directives have had some valuable results in terms of law and order on the ground. The House may not know, for example, that, over this last weekend, 2nd-4th April, there were a considerable number of searches, and successful searches, for arms. Nineteen occupied houses have been searched, there have been 39 searches of unoccupied houses, 19 different areas carefully searched, and 10,000 vehicles searched. In those searches, the following arms were seized: 12 pistols, 6 rifles, 8 shotguns, 3 air guns, 1,689 rounds of ammunition. There were 26 arrests made, and 8 or 9 persons appeared on arms charges this weekend.
What is much more significant, and what, I believe, can be traced to this activity, is the results of the arms amnesty which the new Prime Minister announced. Formerly, when there has been an arms amnesty, the tiny trickle of arms coming in has been disappointing. Up to noon yesterday, however, from the date of the announcement of the amnesty, the following arms have been surrendered: 96 revolvers, 16 pistols, 141 rifles, 43 shotguns, 46 air guns, 20,000 rounds of ammunntion, 26 grenades, 216 detonators, 2 bayonets, 2 signal pistols, 5 magazines, 86 ammunition clips and 12 flares. That is in addition to quite a number of arms actually handed in for safe keeping, for example, 14 revolvers, 25 rifles, 480 rounds of ammunition and 30 shotguns.
I suggest that in that remarkable voluntary surrender of arms there is justifica-
290
tion for the changes in directives which have been made. It is an indication of a sign of an upturn in public confidence. I hope that it will prove to be so, for so long as people are really afraid that there will be a breakdown of authority and so long as people are really nervous about the inability of the security forces and the police to control the situation, so long will people hold tightly on to arms. The fact that these arms are being surrendered seems to me to be a hopeful ingredient in the present situation.
Now, a word about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Unless one accepts the proposition that the Army is to remain for ever in the appalling rôle in which it finds itself in support of the civil authority, the time will come when it will have to find some way of getting off the streets. Here—it is no empty ritual —I again pay tribute to the work which the Army does. We owe our troops so much, and we are very proud of the way in which they carry out a difficult and dangerous task. But, as I say—I respond here to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to look to the future—the time must come when the Army has to find a way of getting off the streets, and this can be done only by rebuilding confidence in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. One must return to policing in the end.
For a wide variety of reasons, morale in the Royal Ulster Constabulary was badly damaged by all the troubles which took place. We have to rebuild not only the morale of the R.U.C. but its numbers and quality as well. One of the problems in building up numbers is that it is not easy to maintain the high quality as one does it. At present, recruiting is going well for the R.U.C. We had about 560 new recruits last year, and everyone must be grateful for the sense of public service which has impelled people to join that force.
One thing which many hon. Members who have influence in Northern Ireland might do is to try to break down any sense among the minority in Ulster that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is in any way one-sided. This feeling still continues, and one of the best ways in which people can help to relieve the Army and return to a situation of normality is to try to rebuild confidence in the Royal Ulster Constabulary itself.
Mr. Michael McGuire: Confidence goes two ways, does it not? The minority would have greater confidence in the R.U.C. if those who were involved in the murder of Samuel Devenney, and the colleagues who know who the murderers were, would tell the authorities concerned who these men are. That, surely, would go a long way towards bringing confidence back.
Captain Orr: Perhaps it would. But I think that the Government have done everything in their power, and the leaders of our police force, our chief constable and everyone else, have done everything in their power. Great efforts have been made in the recruitment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to make sure that recruitment is on no sectarian basis of any kind. Indeed, one of the difficulties in trying to give a figure for the balance of Roman Catholics and Protestants in the R.U.C. at present is that we have done away with the requirement that a new policeman should state his religion. So it is difficult to say.
We now have a police authority set up. No longer are the police, as in the London Metropolis, directly under the Home Office. There is a police authority. It may be that the police authority, in the nature of the present operation, has not quite the same operational direction as was, perhaps, envisaged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Perhaps it is impossible for it to have that kind of operational direction, but at least it should be a guarantee of the impartiality of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
At least, everybody should try to build up confidence in the R.U.C. Let there be no mistake about it, it is a highly efficient force. In spite of the appalling difficulties of the past couple of years, the crime detection rate is practically the same as it is in this country. I think that the crime detection rate of the R.U.C. at present is 40-odd per cent. and that my right hon. Friend will be able to confirm that in Great Britain it is about 42 per cent., so it is practically on a par despite the difficulties of the situation.
Recruiting is going on, and it may not be long before the target is reached. It may have to be increased from 5,000 to 6,000 in due course. But it is a slow
292
business. Someone must give thought to the transitional period. I hope that my right hon. Friend and others are thinking about how to deal with the transition between the Army and the civilian unarmed police on the ground.
The Leader of the Opposition said that what young people were really interested in was houses and, I think, the democratic process. He also touched on the relationship between the Northern Ireland authorities and the Dublin Government. I join him in welcoming what Mr. Lynch said. One of the significant things in his speech on the appointment of Mr. Faulkner was:
"Mr. Faulkner's administration faces a difficult task in normalising the Northern society. Anything my Government can do to help in this will be done willingly and without precondition."
That is a remarkable statement. We might put our minds to the ways in which Mr. Lynch could help; there are a number. It is still considered an outrage and a public scandal that the purveyors of violence can find a refuge south of the border in Eire, that they can find places where they can drill and train. I will accept it if anyone tells me that Mr. Lynch's Government are doing their best to bring that to an end. But it is not unfair to ask that a greater determination might be shown. It is a public scandal when someone from a part of Belfast is found to have been injured in the course of training in an I.R.A. camp somewhere near Dublin. Public opinion finds this outrageous.
There are other ways in which great help could be given. It should be possible to bring about greater co-operation between our security forces and the security forces immediately south of the border, between the R.U.C. and the Garda. I am willing to accept that Mr. Lynch is looking at these things.
I welcome co-operation in economic matters, as the Leader of the Opposition does. There is considerable opportunity for economic co-operation. This could open up quite a wide field, but it should be remembered that it has limitations, that, as I think the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, relationships with foreign countries are a matter for Her Majesty's Government here, and that while explorations go on either at official or

293
Ministerial level across the border, ultimately the decisions are made between the Government here and Dublin, between sovereign Governments.
There is one way in which great help could be given from the South to our present economic situation, and that is through a reconsideration of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement. It may not be appreciated that there are still considerable tariffs, which operate very much to the detriment of Northern Ireland industry. We hope that they would disappear under the E.E.C. It is not generally known that there is still a 16 per cent, tariff on furniture, a 40 per cent. tariff on bread, a 33℣ per cent. tariff on carpets, a 30 per cent. tariff on clothing and a 22½ per cent. tariff on footwear, all important Northern Ireland industries.
I come to the general economic situation for a moment. I do not want to take too long, because I know that some of my hon. Friends would like to develop this matter further. But there is now evidence of considerable good will on the part of Her Majesty's Government, which we recognise, including the scale of investment grants and the fact that inducements to industry are now such as to place us in a favourable position.
I should like to make just one point about the new study at official level into what might be done. I hope that it will not be another examination of the economic problems. During the past two decades we have had a series of examinations. The essential ingredients of the Northern Ireland economic position are well known, and we do not want another examination. What we want now is a small committee to decide precisely how best the resources can be used, and used quickly. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that no doctrinaire views about economics should prevent any sensible use of the moneys available. Although my political philosophy is fundamentally against public or State industries, in this context of a desperate situation, where it is perhaps necessary to find immediate employment either in State industry or public works employment, I would not necessarily rule that out, and I hope that the new Commission will not.
294
Perhaps I might end by trying to answer as briefly as I can the question I imagine everyone, in the atmosphere of this debate, would want to answer—how best can we in this House and in Britain generally help the people of Northern Ireland to return to a normal situation? The first thing is to reiterate, as my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition have, that the union is permanent so long as the Parliament of Northern Ireland wishes it to be, and to keep on reiterating it. Any possible doubt upon that, any glimmer of doubt upon it, is one thing which could lead to a deterioration of the situation.
Second, what is needed now is not only the economic help that we have been offered and not only the military effectiveness on the ground which we are beginning to see and which we applaud and are grateful for. What is really needed now is a massive injection of public confidence.
Our new Prime Minister in Northern Ireland has said that he has to re-create confidence. The present lull in our affairs should not lead us to be too euphoric, because there is no doubt that we are liable to see great troubles in the future and that this is liable to be a long job. But so long as there is determination, and evident determination to bring the situation to an end, so long as there is plainly the political will to do so, then I believe that it is right to strike a note of optimism and confidence.
What can the people of Britain do for us in Ulster, either through this House or through any other medium, since we have done our best in every way to see that British standards obtain in that part of Britain—why should we not, since we are British people ourselves? They can tell us that at least we can get the assurance of British standards in the maintenance of law and that at least we can get investment and confidence. I would say to people, "Come and see us." On the whole, it is a good country to have a holiday in.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Oh.
Captain Orr: It is indeed. It is curious that the hon. Gentleman, who I thought looked beyond the television cameras, should laugh. Let him ask anyone who has been on holiday in

295
Ulster, even in recent times. Let him ask the people who live there and they will tell him that it is a good place to have a holiday. We depend very much on our tourist trade. I say to the people of Britain, "Give us your confidence, give us your investment, give us your trade. We will not let you down."
5.52 p.m.
Mr. Simon Mahon: It is many years since I had the pleasure of addressing the House on the question of Northern Ireland. On that occasion also I followed the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). We have both grown greyer in the years which have intervened. It is with some regret that I have to depart from the standards which have been set in the debate. I hope, however, that I shall not depart from them too far, because we have listened to two Front Bench speeches today which should be studied in great detail. If I may say so to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I do not think that I have ever heard a fine speech on Northern Ireland in an my experience in this House.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South spoke about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He said that it does not now ask what is a man's religion. Perhaps he will tell us whether it leaves out all the other little bits of evidence which would convey a man's religion on the form. If that is so, however, why is not that excellent example followed in industry? So many people in Northern Ireland are employed on the basis of their religion.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about British standards pertaining to Northern Ireland. I cannot resist asking him, "How long?" For 50 years the Unionist Party has been in charge of that part of Ulster—because it is only a part of Ulster, that Ulster that I was taught about at school. If British standards are, indeed, obtaining there now, we welcome it and I hope that there will be reciprocation from the Eire Government.
I represent a Lancashire constituency with many thousands of expatriates. There are many thousands of third and fourth generation Irish there, many of whom like to go home to Ireland for a holiday. That includes all parts of Ire-
296
land. They like to do so even though their loyalties are here. I say that the Lynch Government in Dublin could do one thing. They could bring in medical and social reciprocal measures so that our people going there could benefit just as people from Ireland benefit when they come here and fall in need of our services, when we treat them in the Christian fashion that we should. I hope that people in Ireland are listening to that solid suggestion.
I do not believe that the border is not an issue. I wish it were not. I wish, indeed, that I was tackling the situation of abolishing the border. I remember my mother saying to me, "One day it will disappear like the snow off the Donegal Mountains—as quietly and as dignified as that." The way forward to that day is for the Eire Government, the Northern Ireland Government and the United Kingdom Government to get together in attaining a common denominator in standards of health and social welfare services. Nothing could do more to unit our peoples.
People question the presence of British troops in Northern Ireland. I believe that I was the first person to contact my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), when he was Prime Minister, to ask for the presence of British troops in Northern Ireland. I want to stand up and be counted on that issue. I felt on 14th August, 1969, when I visited Ireland, that without the presence of British troops there would be a complete massacre. That is not an exaggeration. My right hon. Friend responded, and I have evidence showing that the Northern Ireland Government asked for troops on the 15th August. That was the timing of my request.
I pay my testimony to the British Army in Ireland. Tribute has been paid by many people, and because I am not repeating their tribute at length I hope that it will not be treated as meaning that my testimony is less sincerely felt. I say this to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South: I do not know who killed those soldiers but whoever it was, may God forgive them, because I know of nothing that could have set back so far the cause of peace in Northern Ireland as the dastardly killing of these three young immature Scottish soldiers.

297
It is important to find out how long we are going to stay in Ireland. My right hon. Friend, as did the Home Secretary, stipulated that we must stay there as long as we are needed. But if the present situation goes on we shall be staying there for ever and therefore it is imperative that someone should ask, "How long?" It is important that the Northern Ireland Government should know, that the Government of Eire should know and that we should know. It is certainly important that the people of this country should know because, from what I know of the temper of our people, they do not like the presence of our soldiers in this long-standing argument in Ireland. The best news we could give our own people, before their patience runs out, is that the situation has changed and we can bring our troops home where they belong. Our people do not like our troops being involved in these duties and never have liked it.
It has been said, but not often enough, that the Prime Minister of Ireland, Mr. Jack Lynch, has condemned the atrocities and the violence. We put down a Motion, signed by 130 Members, condemning the pursuit of arms and resort to violence and the killing of innocent people and applauding the wisdom and courage of many moderate people in public life who have denounced such action. That is the sort of message which the Prime Minister of Ireland was conveying, and not only him, but the prelates and priests and everybody else in Ireland.
In the light of all that, the Prime Minister of Ireland has said, and it is significant that this was said recently, as my right hon. Friend said, "Let us not appeal to past gods as if past generations in Ireland had said the last word on Ireland. So many people in Ireland and in this country regard the problems of Ireland, ancient and new, as insuperable, as some kind of legend about Dark Rosaline which cannot possibly be satisfied and which will go on for ever. We have to say that the problem will not always go on and that there are opportunities to end it. I pay my testimony to those engaged in the arduous task of trying to bring peace to this divided province. I admired Lord O'Neill and Major Chichester-Clark-who would
298
envy them their task? I wish the new Prime Minister, Mr. Brian Faulkner, who looks and sounds Irish, the best of luck in trying to bring more social justice to the province.
It is here that I may part company from many others. I heard the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr. Faulkner, say that Ulster was as much part of the United Kingdom as was Liverpool or Birmingham. The poet has said this better than I can, but I do not know that any Irishman could always completely agree with that. If Ulster is part of the United Kingdom judicially and legally, in many other ways it is very much part of Ireland. If ever a country on the map looked like one country, Ireland is that country.
What is wrong with being Irish? We have played our part, those of us who have Irish ancestry. I was born in this country, as were my father and grandfather, and we have served no country but our own. My loyalties are here, utterly and completely. It is my country and I am subject to the lawful authority of the country where I was born.
What is wrong with being subject to the lawful authority of a united Ireland if the people desire to have a united Ireland, and that is the only qualification? I am a Liverpudlian, but I do not think that the seas divide. For centuries, Liverpudlians have seen ships leaving for the ports of Ireland. I believe that the seas unite, and they have certainly united this country and Ireland.
All over the world there is to be found the view that Ulster and Eire are one country. I will not bore the House with the long and rather beautiful poem which expresses the matter more eloquently than I can put it, but the poet said:
"She said, 'I never called them sons,
I barely dared to speak their name.
I flung them to the howling waste,
I tossed them to the foaming sea.'
She said, 'I never called them sons,
Yet still their love comes home to me.'"
I should like it to be known that the Orangeman and the Catholic love Ireland as I love my native land, that they love their native land as much as anybody who lives in Cork, Killarney or Wicklow. People are being divided instead of being united.

299
The Irish encircle the world from Hong Kong to Tand Jong Priok, from New Ross to the White House, from Boston to Botany Bay. The Irish have had to move all over the world to work, and no one would take the dignity of knowing how to work from us. But nobody would say that Ulster was not part of Ireland.
Everybody in Northern Ireland is entitled to his traditions, whatever they may be; everyone in Northern Ireland is entitled to his loyalties, whatever they may be. Everyone is entitled to his dignity. There is no need to fear; there is no need to change. But there is a need for tolerance and compassion and it is in these that there is a solution to this problem, in the Christian tolerance and compassion which I believe to exist in all people of Northern Ireland.
Somewhere we have missed the chance of co-ordinating these great gifts, but that co-ordination is not beyond our reach. Social injustice has been mentioned and there has been talk of housing ghettoes and jobs and insecurity. Has anyone in the House any idea of what it is like to be an under-privileged Catholic? Would anyone like to say how far it is from Marsh Lane, Bootle, to the House of Commons? It is not 220 miles, but a million miles. For the lads in the slums of Belfast to a place in the world where they can express themselves is not just a distance across the Irish Sea, but another million miles, and they know it. The cause of most of the trouble in Northern Ireland is that they do not have an equal chance of a decent job, or a proper education.
Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman is more eloquent than he claims. He now says that the minority does not get the education it deserves. Is it not correct that more money has been spent proportionately on Roman Catholic schools in Northern Ireland than on Roman Catholic schools in this country? Secondly, has not the Unionist Government of Northern Ireland said that it would like to see an end of the segregation of education in Northern Ireland which continues the division when young people should be learning to live and play together?
Mr. Mahon:I will disregard the last part of that question. I do not think it
300
is part of the Irish trouble. As some hon. Members know, I have a great interest in education and I have warmly applauded the financial help which Catholic schools have received from both Governments. I have said before that in this regard the Government of Northern Ireland has shown a tremendous example. If they are so tolerant, so compassionate and understanding in education why could they not spread this to other areas such as unemployment and housing? This was wrong and it was bad. I want it to change and quickly.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there are Protestant districts just as ill-housed as any Roman Catholic area? I have referred to the Shankill Road area of Belfast.
Mr. Mahon:The hon. Gentleman is supporting me in my argument. I was chairman of a housing committee in one of the Merseyside districts for a long time and I can assure everyone that the last thing I wanted to know was what religions of applicants were. I wanted to know how many children there were and their living conditions. Until we get this fusing of the people in Northern Ireland we will not get rid of the ghettoes. We may build new houses but we will create new ghettoes.
I was sorry that the Home Secretary could not give any credence to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He gave the House some encouraging figures about the amnesty. My right hon. Friend said 73,000, I said 69,000. I was more modest. This is a lot of guns to be made available.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 73,000 licences issued in Northern Ireland and that each licence means that a person may hold up to six guns? That figure can be multiplied by six.
Mr. Mahon:I am indebted for that embellishment. It was amazing that the right hon. Gentleman could not underline what was said by my right hon. Friend. The amnesty is not enough. If the terms of the Motion placed on the Order Paper in February are the explicit wishes of the House—and I believe that it could be supported by hon. Members

301
opposite—then there are only two bodies in the whole of Northern Ireland which should carry arms. One is the British Army and the other is the Army of the Irish Republic. I suggest that Mr. Lynch should do something about that. We are walking on a knife-edge here. If all of us, the Eire Government, the Northern Ireland Government, the people do not want any trouble this is the way to make a start.
There are martyrs in every cause. I do not believe that there are just Catholic martyrs, and God knows there have been plenty of those. There are not just Protestant martyrs nor Orange martyrs. Every cause and faith, every colour and nation has produced its martyrs. When I was a boy there were names that rang like a legend. They were the names of Michael Collins, Liam Mellowes, Cahill Brugha, Arthur Griffiths, James Connolly, James Larkin, Austin Stack, Terence McSweeney, De Valera, Harry Boland and hundreds of others.
These were the names I knew as a boy. What did they have in common? They had a love of their native land. What happened to them? They fought together and in the end most of them fought against each other; some of them killed each other. In condemning the violence that could take place in Northern Ireland I say most fervently that these people whom I have mentioned, without avowing or disavowing their principles, would say to their own country today "God save Ireland" but they would say to the Irish "But for God's sake do it without a gun".
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know hon. and right hon. Members have strong feelings about this matter. We have had two back bench speeches in very nearly the last hour. Many hon. Members want to speak. I hope that if possible speeches will be a little briefer.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: Despite his early misgivings I do not think that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) strayed very far from the line of what the Leader of the Opposition described as constructive bipartisanship which has characterised most of our debates on this subject. The Leader of the Opposition was fully entitled to remind us that the Downing Street declaration
302
was in the main the basis for continuation of that constructive bipartisan approach. I am perhaps entitled to feel that some of his phrases might not have been used had he still held a position of full responsibility.
He made the point about the marches. Those who march may be provocative but they are not necessarily primitive, as my occasional visits to Trafalgar Square reminds me. Last year I saw the Orange marches and the Apprentice marches. There were a great many young people in both marches. These marches are no longer the prerogative of men living in the past. The Leader of the Opposition spoke movingly about the young and the future, but he should not overlook the fact that there is a depth of feeling associated with those men in the past which, from my observations, some of the youngsters share.
What immediately concerns me and I know it concerns hon. Members on all sides, is the stake we have committed with our security forces to Northern Ireland and the proper discharge of that commitment. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may offer a preferred solution in the long term but, as my right hon. Friend emphasised in his opening remarks, no solution of any kind can be contemplated, still less negotiated at the direction of a gunpoint. The prerequisite of any solution is to stop this reign of fear which a very small minority has established to secure its own ends—what the Leader of the Opposition called violence for its own sake.
We are not unaware that to many in this country who do not view this affair very sympathetically, this is a manifestation of a chronic condition. They are willing, perhaps more than we would like to admit, to accept almost any solution if they felt it would relieve us of that condition. It must be made clear that it is not as simple. Northern Ireland may be singular but my observations, which take place from time to time over there, lead me to think that what is confronting us now, and more directly our security forces, is not peculiar to Northern Ireland. It is a universal condition. It is, quite simply, an attempt to impose direction by strong-arm methods and the terror which arms instil. That is the reality, and it is important not to regard it as the fantasmagoria of Right-wing Unionists. That

303
reality is not confined to the country under discussion. It is a universal phenomenon appearing in different phases and different stages elsewhere in the world.
That is the situation which confronted the last Government which, to their honour, they sought to meet. They set in hand, as the Leader of the Opposition has reminded us today, steps to restore order against determined subversion. For reasons which we all know and which I need not explain, that confrontation faces this Government even more starkly. It is not now just about Ireland. It is not a symbol of tempers there but of will here, and that is why we have a responsibility to Northern Ireland to discharge these duties by the best methods we can.
Doubts have been cast for various reasons on the Army's capacity to discharge these duties. There should be no doubt on that score in any quarter. Under the directorate of the new General Officer Commanding, with whom anyone who has met him must be enormously impressed, we have struck a very fine balance between passivity and escalation and that, in terms of the operation going on there now, is the most difficult balance of all to strike.
No one can spend a day with the Forces in Northern Ireland, particularly in Belfast, without being profoundly moved, not simply by the Army's qualities in military terms but by the wisdom with which it is setting about its task. That is a rare thing in military forces anywhere. There is, as my right hon. Friend observed, a matchless blend of determination and restraint. It is easy to show one and to lose the other. All ranks, from the General Officer Commanding down to the last soldier, are on a knife edge, confronted by 300 or 400 of the I.R.A., and some perhaps who are not I.R.A.—I take the point made by the hon. Member. Fifty of those will probably stop at nothing, including the loss of their own lives, and many of them are in two opposing factions.
The Army finds its prime object to neutralise without bloodshed and that—let no one make a mistake about it—involves enormous risks for the Army. The Army has set about it in the right way with active patrolling on foot and no "no go" areas. There is a willingness
304
everywhere to encounter, challenge, search, arrest and stop and ask questions but only in the most restricted circumstances to open fire. Coupled with this resolution, which calls for immense steadiness, bearing in mind that this goes right through all ranks, there is full awareness of the need to regain the confidence and co-operation of the population, to get the population willing to inform, and to report on the side of law enforcement not only to the Army but to the police. The point made by my hon. Friend about the amnesty is absolutely sound. That is exactly the sort of result which will flow as confidence is gained that not only are our security forces in charge but that the population is with the security forces and not apart from them.
Citizens in this country do our Army a great injustice if they suppose it is fulfilling its task simply by force of arms. I am delighted to learn that the higher command has determined that our soldiers shall no longer have to tolerate stoning, abuse and so on without a firm response. The soldiers now have authority to curb this by reasonable means and to arrest hoodlums who in many instances were the people who offered the worst insults.
The higher command is also aware, and has made this awareness known to all ranks, that reprisals are no answer. There was no more impressive episode than that which occurred after the death of the three soldiers when the word went round and was accepted "no revenge". It is a very disciplined Army which will accept that and act upon it. The Army's biggest battle is not a safe one but a psychological one to get the population on its side.
Therein is the virtue of this new style of patrolling. It courts encounters with the I.R.A. and it nips in the bud the incipient trouble of large crowds gathering and disorder getting out of hand. It also makes contact with the population. It is difficult to make contact on a moving vehicle and far easier to do so on foot patrol. It also restores the willingness to give information, and the information which my hon. Friend was able to offer on the weekend of 2nd to 4th April flowed directly from information which the population is beginning to give both to the Army and to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The more the Army can

305
act on information, the less likely are our soldiers to have a fatal confrontation in any one area.
This formula seems to have been communicated to all ranks. By all means let us express admiration for the Army's work in Northern Ireland, but let us be clear on what grounds we are expressing that admiration. People in this country should perhaps more fully appreciate that it is not simply valour that we are praising but sagacity. I am left with the feeling that no other Army in the world could discharge the task which those units are now performing in Belfast.
We are heavily committed. I will not enlarge on what the hon. Gentleman has said about the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but I share all his misgivings. I never go to Northern Ireland without despairing at what appears to be a widening gap between the responsibilities which the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be taking on and what the Army still has to take on. It may escalate. The new methods may lead to sharp response, and we shall be ready for this. It may be said that the régime has certain chronic weaknesses within it and—this language can be overdone—that Mr. Faulkner is the last ditch. It is not hard to find "ifs" and "buts", they abound; it is easy to be fatalistic. I gain the impression that the events of the last 18 months have left their mark on the protagonists. Good men and women on both sides are profoundly shocked by the outrages which have been committed in their name, particularly recently.
We are not now simply engaged in the thankless task of holding a peace line between two warring communities. What we are doing now is seeking to neutralise terror, and those methods should be given a chance to work. The instrument which we have in our hands for carrying this work through enormously improves our chances of success. This is not the Army which some of us remember from many years ago. It is an entirely different force, a new creation. Ultimately it may be controlled from Whitehall by my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, but its strength lies in its being so self-controlled and having intense sensitivity to the nature of the task in hand.
If Northern Ireland comes through this and enjoys better times, the debt which we shall owe these forces will be
306
immeasurable. We should perhaps start to discharge that debt, not simply by giving them our full confidence, but by understanding why we should give them our full confidence.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: I am conscious, Mr. Speaker, of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak and I shall therefore be very brief.
It is only on rare occasions that virtual unanimity is achieved in the House. The unanimity shown today reflects the concern which exists about Northern Ireland and our desire to improve, and certainly not to worsen, the situation. I should like briefly to make six points.
First, the Home Secretary emphasised that there would be no change in the policy of reform which has previously been embarked upon. That was underlined by the Leader of the Opposition. Nevertheless, it is inevitably causing a certain degree of concern that certain individuals—for example, Mr. West—who are extreme opponents of reform are now within Mr. Faulkner's Cabinet. This concern is manifest within the Ulster Unionist Party. There was recently the resignation of Mrs. Dickson for the same reason. While clearly the Ulster Prime Minister must seek a broad base in order to have any room for political manœuvre, it is most important that the Government, in this bipartisan approach, should ensure that there is no going back on reform. Major Chichester-Clark—and I echo the tributes paid to him—was forced out of office by Right-wing pressure. Some of those same Right-wingers are now in Mr. Faulkner's Government.
Secondly, it is right to refer briefly to the electoral system in Northern Ireland. When, in the 1920s, the Unionist Party abolished the proportional representation system set up by the Government of Ireland Act which is still playing its part in Eire in the alleviation of sectarian pressures, it undoubtedly did so to secure the dominance of its own caucus. I shall not embark on arguments about proportional representation, but there is little doubt that in the unique situation of Northern Ireland the single-member system simply means that if there is any split in the Unionist Party an opponent, regarded by it as an opponent

307
of the constitution, is liable to get in. There is therefore a movement to the right in the Unionist Party which could otherwise have been effectively prevented.
Mr. Rafton Pounder: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman referred to the change from proportional representation to single-member constituencies to solidify the caucus of the Unionist Party. He should look at history, because in 1929, when that took place, the results of the last election under the proportional representation system for the Unionist representation at Stormont were identical to those in the first election under the single-member system.
Mr. Delargy: Why was it abolished?
Mr. Pounder: To bring the system into line with the system over here.
Mr. Johnston: The situation in Northern Ireland is special. I do not think the intervention of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) detracts from my point. Obviously the Home Secretary or the Government will say, "We are not in a position to say anything about that because Lord Crowther is proceeding with his Commission on the Constitution". But is there no possibility of an interim report being made by the Crowther Commission? Anything which helped to alleviate the pressures, very often on the Unionist Party, would be of great value.
Thirdly, reference has been made by a number of speakers to the revival of economic co-operation between Dublin and Stormont. This is certainly a very good sign, and I imagine that everyone with common sense welcomes it.
Fourthly, I come to the question of guns. One thing which the Government spokesman who winds up must make clear is precisely what is meant by the need for people to have a "substantial reason" for possessing or using guns. The Leader of the Opposition referred to rifle clubs. Have they a "substantial reason" for having guns? I doubt it. I agree that it would be far the best thing if it were simply said that for a period no guns would be allowed at all. This is an exceptional situation. On the other hand, I regard that as an impracticable proposition because it would be im-
308
possible to implement and I do not believe in passing laws which people cannot put into practice. Nevertheless, I am sure that there must be a tightening up, and perhaps rifle clubs are an area for consideration.
Fifthly, I deal with the question of processions. It would be a constructive, restrained act for both sides to say, "We are going to have a moratorium on processions. We shall put them off for a period. We shall not be provocative." That may be virtually impossible. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) seems to agree. It is difficult for us on this side of the Irish Sea to understand the pressures which make people go through these things each year, but I still say that, looking at it from the outside—and I have not been to Northern Ireland since November—processions contribute nothing towards making the situation one whit better and they considerably contribute to worsening it.
Captain Orr: It is difficult sometimes for us to understand the Durham Miners' Gala.
Mr. Johnston: I do not think the two things are directly comparable.
Sixthly, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition about the urgent need for public works programmes to tackle the unemployment problem which indubitably exacerbates the tension, because it means that men have time which they would not otherwise have and are led into the violent situations which from time to time have occurred.
What the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said, namely, that the violent men are few, is probably true. But in a community which is so determinedly divided, it is inevitable that they should appear and perhaps not insignificant that they should be so hard to trace. We in this House are today exercising considerable political restraint, and that is the only message which we can give to the people of Northern Ireland. It is not a very exciting message. It is a very hard message to put into effect, but it seems to me the only possible way out.
6.39 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Fisher: I appreciate the restrained and short speech of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnsston). I propose to follow

309
him in both respects. I agree with what he said about the withdrawal of arms and the banning of marches.
As you, Mr. Speaker, are I believe aware, I am an Ulsterman by marriage and I have a home in Northern Ireland. Therefore, inevitably, I have been involved in the terrible events of recent years.
I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in the course of an interview reported in the Sunday Times, that it is only in the cities, especially in Belfast and sometimes in Londonderry, that this problem exists. Television and newspaper reports often give the impression that Ulster is practically aflame. But those who live there know that the countryside of Ulster is exactly the same as the countryside of England and that the problem is confined to certain urban areas.
Having said that, I acknowledge that Ulster must be one of the few remaining parts of the world where, unfortunately, religion still plays an important and a divisive part in politics. Until quite recently, and perhaps still, Catholic priests used to warn the faithful of hellfire if they voted Unionist—
Mr. Fitt: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) talks of purgatory to his congregation.
Mr. Fisher: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) must wait for it. I do not intend to be one-sided in my comments. On the other hand, it was almost impossible for a Unionist to enter public life without first joining the Orange Order. In fact, my wife was ex-communicated from the Orange Order for daring to set foot in a Roman Catholic church in London to attend the wedding of the daughter of an old friend who was to be married to a Catholic. Bigotry can scarcely go further than that, and it applies on both sides of the religious divide.
I do not like extremism of any kind. On all issues, I have always believed in policies of tolerance and moderation and reform. For that reason, I was a good deal out of sympathy with the way in which the Province of Ulster was governed for the first 45 years of its semi-autonomous existence. The Unionist Party was dedicated to the Protestant
310
ascendancy, and until the premiership of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, and later that of Major Chichester-Clark, it seemed that no one was in the least interested in giving equal rights to Catholics in Ulster.
Lord O'Neill and Major Chichester-Clark tried to build bridges between those of different religions. They tried to unite Ulster. But it was difficult, as it always is, to do in four years what should have been spread over 40. They could not, therefore, unite the Unionist Party. The ultra-Protestants thought that Lord O'Neill and Major Chichester-Clark were going too far too fast, and this created the Protestant backlash which, if he will forgive the somewhat hostile expression, is represented by the reverend Gentleman who sits for Antrim, North in this House and for the Bannside at Stormont. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has left the Chamber, because I do not like criticising anyone in his absence. With his compulsive urge to oppose his own Government on every major issue, apparently even my right hon. Friend is now playing the Orange card.
There is no more excuse today for Catholic extremism than for Protestant extremism. The civil rights case has at last been conceded. The overdue reforms have belatedly been introduced and will soon work themselves through to the citizens of Ulster in their daily lives. So the hitherto divisive speeches of the hon. Member for Antrim, North and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), which I hope will not be repeated this evening, are as irrelevant today as they have always been irresponsible. With respect, it is time that they ceased. I believe that this is realised by the ordinary, decent people of Ulster. They have had enough of bloodshed and strife fanned by fanatical politicians who peddle prejudice and lack judgment.
There are no longer the same large confrontations in the streets between Protestant and Catholic crowds hurling stones and petrol bombs at each other. To that extent, the position is healthier. But, perhaps because it is healthier, the I.R.A. has come to Ulster to terrorise and to kill. The arms of the I.R.A. are not just stones and home-made petrol bombs. They are the more professional machine

311
guns, often fired at British soldiers and Ulster policemen from behind a screen of school children and young hooligans. The objectives of the I.R.A. are no longer the traditional Catholic aspirations for a united Ireland, which I respect.
Miss Bernadette Devlin: If the hon. Gentleman were more aware of his history, he would probably consider his last remark a disservice to the Catholic Church. It is historically incorrect to say that the aims of the I.R.A. have ever had anything to do with the Catholic Church or the Catholic minority. In its campaign in 1956, during the 1916 troubles and subsequently in the 1920s, members of the I.R.A. and the Sinn Fein were excommunicated by the Catholic Church.
Mr. Fisher: I am sorry if I paid the I.R.A. any compliment to which it is not entitled. But its purpose—and I do not associate the hon. Lady with the I.R.A. —is chaos and revolution. Like the member of the People's Democracy organisation who said it, the I.R.A. does not want reform. It wants revolution in Ireland; and we cannot negotiate with terrorism.
In these circumstances, I sympathise very much with my Ulster Unionist colleagues and those whom they represent. I sympathise with the feelings of fear and frustration which exist in Ulster today among ordinary people. Law and order must be restored in the streets and in every street. That is why the "no go" areas in Belfast are important. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend's remarks today on this subject. In fact the troops go in. But they do not stay in. For that reason, I prefer to call these enclaves the "no stay" streets.'
I well understand the Ulster argument which is sometimes addressed to the British Government, though, of course, the situation is better today than it was two weeks ago; and the credit for that, without wishing in any way to sound patronising to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), is due largely to the heartfelt representations made recently by my hon. Friends from Ulster. They made a strong and a remarkable presentation of the Ulster case, and it greatly impressed their Conservative colleagues.
312
I have received a letter from Ulster which says:
"You have disarmed our police, but you don't order your soldiers to keep the peace effectively in our capital city."
I understand that. It is a strong argument, because there are some areas in Belfast where the Queen's writ does not run all the time. It runs some of the time, but not all of the time, and that is a sad situation in any city of the United Kingdom.
But—I want to be fair to everyone, as we all do—I also sympathise with my right hon. Friend. It would be a grave responsibility for any Minister in London to disregard all the best military advice on the spot. I have no doubt that soldiers could commandeer any houses which they wish to occupy in the no-stay areas, but if that is all they are going to do, they may as well sit outside and patrol in as they already do. If they are to be in the streets actually patrolling, every day and all the time, we must be prepared to accept that there would be casualties, that British soldiers would be killed, picked off one or two at a time like sitting ducks by I.R.A. snipers who would then disappear into the ghetto.
The problem in Ireland is as much psychological as it is political and military. The people of Ulster must be assured and must believe that we are winning, that peace will be restored, and soon. If they believe that, they will bear the present position for a little longer, but they cannot be expected to tolerate it for very much longer.
I should like to ask my hon Friend one or two questions. The first may sound naive—I have not studied it. Does he think that an electoral system of proportional representation, aimed to encourage the moderates and discourage the extremists, would be at all helpful in Ulster? I ask that for only one reason —it may not apply—and that is that I remember very well indeed that, when there was murder and arson and civil war between Africans and Indians in Guyana seven or eight years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) introduced P.R. and it virtually eliminated the race politics which had been the cause of all the trouble.

313
Secondly, what advice has my right hon. Friend received from the Army commander about banning the marches—I revert to the point of the hon. Member for Inverness—not just the Easter marches but all the marches this year? I should have thought that that might be a very wise precaution. They have always been the cause of trouble in the last two years, and it would be very difficult—I put this now, just before Easter —to stop the Protestant marches later if the Catholic marches are allowed this Easter.
Thirdly, if the troubles get any worse in the summer—unfortunately, they always tend to do so—what are the Army's views about imposing a curfew in the bad areas of Belfast if it became necessary, and also about the banning of private arms in the cities? I underline that last word; why should anyone want a rifle who lives in a city? I take the point of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South that the result of the amnesty has been immensely encouraging, but I should like to ensure that it could be complete.
Generally, there is one important fact about the situation which must be accepted on both sides of the Irish Sea. It is that Mr. Faulkner is Ulster's last chance. If the hard-liners in his own party throw him out, what they will get is direct rule. That is a prospect which surely they would welcome as little as we would. Mr. Faulkner is a professional, an experienced and skilful politician, who will certainly give himself and Ulster a good chance, but the British Government must support him 100 per cent., because he is our last chance as well as Ulster's.
The Protestant militants must realise that Mr. Craig is not an alternative, because his policies are, rightly, totally unacceptable to any British Government and would, in my opinion, cause civil war in Ulster. Therefore, it is no use the Northern Ireland constituency associations choosing hard-liners to represent them at Stormont instead of moderates. Direct rule, of course—I know that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) would agree with the Home Secretary—is a last resort which no one in Britain wants, but it is a possibility which should be spelled out in plain words by my right hon. Friend, as it was
314
by the Leader of the Opposition, because it must be clearly understood in Ulster.
The Ulster Unionists may dislike British policies, but if they do not back Mr. Faulkner, they will end up with British policies and British rule as well. That is not a threat: it is a fact.
6.56 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: Time alone would prevent me from following the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher). I would rather refer to the speech of the Home Secretary and try to clarify some of the issues on which he seemed to be optimistic, without any apparent justification.
He pointed out that the reform programme which had been brought to the Statute Book in Northern Ireland was now being felt on the ground and that this was the reason for the resurgence of violence—that some people in Northern Ireland did not like the operation of the reforms. I live in the city of Belfast, in the capital city of Northern Ireland, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, as yet, none of those reforms has had any effect whatever on the everyday life of the population.
Let us go through the reforms, as the Home Secretary did. The principle of one man, one vote has been finally instituted—25 years after it was available in this country, and after many people in Northern Ireland had had to endanger their lives to get it on the Statute Book. As yet, no elections have taken place in local government where this principle has been in operation. The local government elections have been postponed until October, 1972. We have yet to see the effect of this reform.
Mr. Kilfedder: What about tomorrow, the City Council elections?
Mr. Fitt: The Central Housing Authority is one of the major reforms, but its members have not yet been appointed. If we are to go by experience in Northern Ireland, the personnel will be appointed by the Government and the Minister of Development without asking for the advice or the consideration of Opposition Members of Parliament. Since the Unionist party has a built-in majority, with a permanent Opposition, I believe

315
that they have the duty at least to consult the Opposition on who should be appointed to these public boards under the reform programme. The Parliamentary Commissioner is certainly in operation, and we are grateful for that.
The former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the Leader of the Opposition would accept, I think, that local government reform is one of the paramount issues in Northern Ireland and has been for a number of years. We do not yet know what the Government are going to do in this most important field. If we are to go by experience, if we are to listen to our own suspicions, we must be concerned about the effect and the shape of local government reform. Included in the present Cabinet of Northern Ireland under the premiership of Mr. Faulkner are some of the most hard-line Unionists ever elected to office in the history of that country.
One of my hon. Friends referred to the present Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Harry West. He has made it clear that he stands in total opposition to local government reform as it was first announced in the Macrory Report. Another member of the Cabinet in Northern Ireland is the present Chief Whip, Mr. John Brook, who has said that the principle of one man, one vote would be instituted over his dead body.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and Social Security, Mr. Joseph Burns, who comes from North Derry, has said in speeches in Northern Ireland that the inception of the Welfare State there had meant thousands of people not wanting to work. He believes that the Welfare State has made things too soft, and this is a man who has been appointed to look after the health and social services, or, in other words, the Welfare State. He will undoubtedly bring strong right-wing pressure to bear on that Ministry.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Is it not a fact that in Northern Ireland, as in this part of the United Kingdom, people say things in opposition which do not always bind them once they get into Government?
Mr. McNamara: At a stroke?
Mr. Fitt: If the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) wishes to cast aspersions on any hon. Member of this House, it is not for me to contradict him.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that these gentlemen have said that they have been suddenly converted?
Mr. Fitt: This debate has been largely concerned with law and order and one of the most important aspects of this from Northern Ireland's point of view has been the Hunt Report, which was initiated by the Labour Government. Its recommendations have been accepted by all in Northern Ireland who believe that law and order should be administered in an impartial way to all citizens.
However, since the departure of Sir Arthur Young, the former Chief Constable, who had the support and confidence of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, a ferocious attack has been mounted on the Hunt proposals. That attack has been led by the Minister of Agriculture in the Northern Ireland Government who has said that he would not belong to an Administration which implemented the Hunt proposals.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has given vociferous support to those sentiments expressed by the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture, and there are many right-wingers in the Northern Ireland Government who have also voiced total opposition to the Hunt proposals.
One can only draw a straw in the wind and wonder what is to happen. A few weeks ago we had the promotion in the R.U.C. of a person who was formerly known as District Inspector Meharg. He has now been appointed Assistant Chief Constable, a position of very senior rank. Hon. Members may recall that on 5th October in Derry this man ordered a batton charge against defenceless women and children. [Interruption.] Yes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) was in Derry that day to see for himself.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Yes—a real shocker.
Mr. Fitt: It would appear that there is real reason for the suspicions that are now being voiced by people in Northern Ireland about there having been a

317
departure from the Hunt Report. I hope that the Minister will allay these fears, particularly in connection with law and order. To do this he must answer a number of specific questions.
Has there been any change in respect of law and order in Northern Ireland? In other words, have different directives been given to the British military and security forces there?
If there has been no change of policy, why did the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland have to resign? Is it that the present Prime Minister there has been given certain guarantees by Her Majesty's Government which they were not prepared to give to the former Prime Minister, Major Chichester-Clark? If so, I do not hesitate to say that Major Chichester-Clark was treated shabbily by those from whom he could have expected support.
If that is the position, then he was driven to the inescapable conclusion that the Tory Government in London wanted rid of him. If that is not so, and if there has been such a change—in other words, if different directives have been given to the British Army there—we are entitled to know what those new directives are.
It would appear, as the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said, that in recent days the Army has been carrying out searches. "competently"—his word. The hon. Gentleman quoted some figures, and from whence he got them I do not know. Have the British security forces been given authority or new directives to carry out searches in only Catholic areas, which is what has been happening? This has been causing a great deal of hostility.
We recall how, on 9th October, 1969, after the Westminster Government had been forced to intervene and accept responsibility for law and order by sending British troops there, the first shooting that took place was not in a Catholic ghetto or in, for example, the Falls Road area, but in the heart of a so-called loyalist area, where machine guns, rifles, revolvers and all manner of arms and ammunition were used against British troops.
In those exchanges a young British policeman lost his life and 20 to 30 British soldiers miraculously escaped death because they were wearing pro-
318
tective clothing. But they did not find the arms that were used against them. They did not even look for them.
Mr.John E Maginnis:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that after the events which he has been trying to describe, the Army carried out a search of the Shankill Road area?
Mr.Fitt:Yes,and.it lasted for perhaps two hours. The searches in the Catholic areas have lasted for years. The people in those areas, having suffered the traumatic experience in 1969 when their homes were burnt out and their possessions lost at the hands of Unionist extremists, felt that they should acquire arms to prevent that sort of thing from happening again.
I am not saying that they were right to do that and I am not seeking to justify their action. However, they know that at least 73,000 firearm licences have been issued to others in Northern Ireland. These licences entitle the holders to carry upwards of six guns of different calibre per licence, which means that the figure of 73,000 can be multiplied four or six times. How can those whose homes were burnt down in Belfast be expected to look with anything but fear when their areas are being searched and other areas are being left completely alone? If there is to be any confidence in the security forces in Northern Ireland, be they the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the military, it must be made quite clear that they are there for the protection of each and every individual in Northern Ireland.
We listened this afternoon to the Home Secretary and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition telling the House that there would be no departure from the reform commitments entered into in the August declaration of 1969. But many people in Northern Ireland are not prepared to accept that these guarantees will be given. I believe that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will prove to be a high watermark in Northern Ireland because he said that if the right wing of the Unionist Party believes it can have success by sheer force in Northern Ireland, the British Government have contingency plans for direct rule. It is time that this was said and it should be spelt out more clearly than has been the case up to the present.

319
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for voicing the sentiments that the Northern Ireland situation cannot be allowed to remain in the frozen position in which it has existed over the last 50 years. He said that within the shortest possible time all political parties in the House should have an opportunity to discuss with all political parties in Northern Ireland an eventual constitutional settlement. I believe that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 has failed. After 50 years of the operation of this Act, which devolved responsibility on to Stormont and brought forth the Special Powers Act, which gave rise to an armed police force and a para-military force, such as the "B" Specials, and with all the extra pieces of oppression which have been placed on the Statute Book year after year, we have still had trouble, distress, turmoil and tragedy stalking the streets of Northern Ireland. Now is the time for the British Government, bearing full responsibility for every person, place and thing in Northern Ireland under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, fully to accept that responsibility.
The House originally was to have debated Northern Ireland as an emergency matter. It would appear that for the moment the emergency has passed, but nobody can be in any doubt that the position has not settled down in Northern Ireland. Until there is a constitutional settlement and a redress of the wrongs committed in 1920, it will always be a trouble spot in the United Kingdom. I believe that all men of good will in this House, whether Conservative, Liberal or Labour, should now apply their energies to ensuring that this situation, which has existed for far too long in Northern Ireland, should not be allowed to remain one moment longer than is necessary. If this happens, I am certain that men of good will in Northern Ireland—and there are many—will accept the fact that they are Irish and that their future lies in a national reunified country. The sooner this is realised by the House, the better it will be for everyone concerned in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom.
7.14 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: It is with great diffidence that I address the House on Northern Ireland. I have some sympathy with hon. Members since,
320
being a Scotsman, a Roman Catholic, a Unionist, and having married an Irish woman who is now writing a book about their greatest Parliamentarian, Oliver Cromwell, I appreciate what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) may occasionally feel about the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I have some appreciation of the feelings which are rife in the Province.
I had the good fortune last weekend to travel to Belfast in my capacity as a Member of Parliament and a Roman Catholic. I remember as a young man reading that great poem by Yeats when he watched the Easter Rising, and it will be remembered that the poem ends with the words:
… no terrible beauty was born."
Well, no terrible beauty has been born in Belfast. This is a tragedy which faces this country and which unless these matters are put right, could be a matter of national shame.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not pay sufficient attention to history this afternoon, because it is there. There is no question that it still has a dominant influence in Irish life and is a factor which cannot be disregarded. The first duty of the House is to make clear where its responsibility in Northern Ireland lies. The whole history of Ireland has been bedevilled by the vacillation of Westminster again and again, whether in the potato famine, or at the time of Curragh or during the 'twenties. This weakness and change of mind has been the father of Irish violence. This is why it is so desperately important that the House should make quite clear where it stands tonight.
The Leader of the Opposition was correct to spell out the Downing Street declaration. I do not wish to make such a formal statement but would emphasise that it is essential we should know where we are and that Ireland and Ulster should know where they are. The first condition is clearly that the people of Ulster are an integral part of the United Kingdom and that we shall defend their right to be an integral part of the United Kingdom until their minds are changed. The second point, which must be made clear, is that because they are in the United Kingdom we in this House are finally

321
responsible for their good government. This, alas, has been a principle which for too long has been disregarded by this House.
Within the parameters of the rights and duties of this House another matter of vital importance for this House is to do something about law and order, because it is our responsibility. Law and order is conditioned by two things—first by the application of law and, secondly, by the production of order in which law can thrive. That means remedying of abuse and seeing that those things on which violence thrives are eradicated. That is our function as a House of Commons. Beyond this it is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide their own fate. It is for them to decide what sort of country they are to be.
I do not take the ultra-pessimistic view that is taken by some hon. Members. Ireland is an island full of noises, but one of the troubles is that there are far too many Calibans and not enough Prosperos around.
Despite the failures there have been—and looking back through the history of Ireland to 1916 one realises that the successes have not been very great—there has been great economic advance in the Province, but political difficulties still abide. Nevertheless I see two things which are hopeful, and what I have to say may offend hon. and right hon. Members on both sides. First of all, I see that the political power of the Roman Catholic Church to which I belong is diminishing, and I believe that, on the whole, to be good. Secondly, I see that the Protestant ascendancy in Northern Ireland in political terms has been modified, if not surrendered voluntarily. That is borne out chiefly by the fact that the military machine which sustained that ascendancy has now gone. These are remarkable changes in Ireland as a whole.
There are other things which are im-portant and helpful.There is the ecumenical feeling throughout the Churches. There is greater toleration than formerly. There is a feeling of greater interest between the Governments of the South and of the North. The whole House must have welcomed the arm of help stretched out by Lynch to the Northern Ireland Government, and the reciprocating action by the new
322
Minister of Commerce in sending a mission south.
All these things are to the good but, at the same time—because perhaps there is a new breeze of reform throughout the island—we are faced with a new and special peril. It is no longer a question of the old I.R.A. As the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, much darker forces are at work today, not just in Northern Ireland but in the South as well. These constitute the real danger, far more than schoolboys saying in the Falls Road area, "I am the colonel of the I.R.A." These people, whether they operate in the North or in the South, are political thugs and potential murderers, and must be put down. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] I could give names, but I will not weary the House with them. These people exist.
We have to make sure that in the North law and order can be preserved. I shall not say anything now about the great task which the Army is performing. Far the best statement of what the Army is doing was written by Lord Chalfont in a publication of which I am not necessarily fond, the New Statesman. Lord Chalfont in his last paragraph said:
"There are those in Westminster and Stormont who could learn lessons from the British Army in patience, compassion and political reality."
I believe that statement to be true. The way in which the Army has carried out its task has been wonderful, and I have only one comment to make about it. I speak with not a little experience of terrorism and counter-terrorism in Africa and closer home during the last war. It is possible that in the past one of the failures of the Army has been to go for too wide a target. It is essential that when an army is carrying out a policing role it should aim at the smallest target, because that causes the least disturbance amongst people whose support that army must seek.
I believe that some of the Army searches, spread over a wide area—which produced very little—and the use of tear gas, which has been abandoned, were in error. The Army must aim at specific targets, and this is being done far more. Army support must go in parallel with the forces of order. There must be an eradication of the reasons for violence

323
and the grounds on which it flourishes. This has been touched on in several ways this afternoon but I will just touch on two specific aspects.
First, there is the problem of provocation. I believe that this is being looked into by the new Prime Minister of Northern Ireland; the question of the marchers, the modifying of the impact of "Ulster 1971". These matters are of importance. Secondly, as was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, it must be seen on the ground that reform is really becoming effective. This is true. Here I speak to my Catholic colleagues—[Interruption.]or my fellow Catholics—
Mr. Delargy: That is better.
Mr. Fraser: It is vital at this stage that when these opportunities of reform have been offered, Catholics in Northern Ireland should take up the positions that it is now possible for them to take up. I know as a Roman Catholic the small disadvantages one suffers even in this country today. They are very minor, but Roman Catholics once suffered quite considerable—
Mr. Delargy: Your family never did.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am getting a little worried about the time. A great many hon. Members wish to speak. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may be allowed to continue.
Mr. Fraser:It is important that those people should take the chances that are offered. Reforms will work only if they are made to work by those who have the opportunities. We have the present Government, we have a House of Commons which I believe is on the whole dedicated to the concept of reform, and we have a new Government in Northern Ireland, however many astonishing conversions there may be on the "road to Damascus" of Stormont. This is the force we have, and this is the force we have to make work.
7.29 p.m.
Mr. Paul B. Rose: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) in his emphasis on the role of Westminster in Irish and Northern Ireland affairs. I found it
324
rather strange to see nods of assent coming from members of the Ulster Unionist Party who, only six years ago when I was trying to break through the barrier of convention, raised point of order after point of order to prevent the House discussing the problem in Ireland which some of us saw looming ahead at that time. Unfortunately, at that time we were ignored. I also agree with him that the decision about the future of Northern Ireland must rest with the people of Northern Ireland.
This means that the constitutional position is one which must be flexible and must be left for an element of decision by the people there. There can be no question of forcing a State which has existed for 50 years into a shotgun marriage with the Republic, which would result only in Unionism in reverse, in discrimination against another minority within a larger majority, and so we would reach the situation where a united Ireland would be operating Unionist policies in reverse. That is why I have no reservations in condemning forthrightly violence, from whichever side it comes, especially violence from that side which, I believe, has smashed everything which we in the Civil Rights Movement and the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster were working for, and working for with some success.
When the British public saw the spectacle of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) assaulted by an R.U.C. baton charge, they woke up to the iniquitous work going on in Northern Ireland. There was a great fund of sympathy, but there is no fund of sympathy for people who shoot from hide-outs or windows, or who shoot British soldiers on the streets, for no other reason than their fanatical devotion to a cause—a cause which, I believe, they damage. It is for this reason that the question of Ulster has been difficult for many of us here over recent months, because the work we have done was sabotaged both by those who refused to listen, in the first place, and those who jumped on the bandwagon, in the second place.
We have to ask why it has happened that a movement so full of promise has been damaged in this way. We have to look at what happened at Bombay Street, where a whole street of Catholic houses was burnt out. We have to put ourselves in the position of a person in a ghetto

325
of that kind, faced with the fact that the forces of law and order appeared to be the very forces helping the arsonists, the looters and the people forcing others out of their houses at that time. We have to understand that for those people, wrong as the gunmen were, they appeared to be the only persons prepared to defend them.
I should like to see again the day when British troops were cheered, as they were in Derry when they saved the Bogside from being burnt to the ground, instead of being thought of as the bogymen that the I.R.A. provisionals have made them, because British troops must be seen to be operating a policy which does not discriminate against any section of the community. That is why they were sent. It is not surprising that in Ballymurphy, for example, there was easy recourse to violence, when one understands that 47 per cent. of the adult male population is unemployed. So a massive injection of economic aid, of house building and the rest, must be an essential prerequisite to extinguishing some of the fires which have been lit in that area.
I find it difficult to know how, in a situation in which 800,000 people are unemployed in the United Kingdom as a whole, and with the current policies of the Government, we shall see the kind of economic aid which is needed in Northern Ireland. Certainly the philosophy of the "lame duck" cannot be applied to this area, unless we are to accept the gravest political consequences.
We in the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster, which includes 100 Members on this side of the House, tried to remove the gun from Irish politics by basing our programme upon reform. In 1967, four years ago, a report was submitted to the then Home Secretary in which we forecast almost exactly what would happen if the reforms were not forced through fast enough—if they came too late. The great problem is that the reforms came through too late, and they were seen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West said, purely as paper reforms, reforms which have so far not affected in any degree the lives of ordinary people in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the lives of many are a great deal worse because of the current unemployment situation.
326
There cannot be a great deal of confidence on the part of the average Catholic inhabitant of Belfast when he knows that out of 10,000 shipyard workers, only 300 are members of his faith. Discrimination even occurs—and we on this side of the House hate to say this —at the level of the trade union movement.
This is why I welcome the formation in Northern Ireland of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, a party which, I believe, has a great deal of hope in it for uniting members of all faiths and none, in trying to work within the constitution, even though their long-term aims may be for what makes sense politically and historically, a united Ireland, but a united Ireland can come only by consent and not by force, and which works against the kind of bigotry that we have seen coming from all sides and which we see in that grotesque example of a funeral procession attacked by people merely because a tricolour happened to be covering one of the coffins.
Out of this situation a new Government has emerged, the Government of Mr. Faulkner, who is undoubtedly the first able politician to emerge on the Unionist side at Stormont. Many of us here feel that what is happening is a slide of the Rhodesian type, that we are going from the Garfield Todd, to the Ian Smith, to the Lardner Burke and so on; a gradual slide to the Right. It must be emphasised for those people in Northern Ireland tempted to slide any further to the Right that there can be no further move that way without direct rule from Westminster, because a further move to the Right cannot be acceptable.
There must be strong opposition—I am glad that there is a certain unanimity about this in the House—to the arming of the police as such, to the resurrection, in whatever form, of the "B" Specials, to the creation of internment camps or to the occupation of what might be termed the Catholic ghettos. Surely the object is to prise the population free of the gunmen, not to force the gunmen into the arms of the population. It is by dividing the gunmen from those who genuinely want to see changes and have genuine grievances, not by making the gunmen into martyrs, that one deals with a situation of this kind. In a Province

327
as volatile as Northern Ireland, one cannot allow 73,000 guns to be distributed among a population of one and a half million, or allow 108 gun clubs, most of which are not sporting clubs, when we know that Mr. Craig quite openly talks about a private army that would be prepared to fight for a U.D.I.
If this Government were to assert its authority, in the last analysis there must be a clear statement from the Government to the Craigs of Northern Ireland that their policies cannot be acceptable and will be met by the full weight of this House, and all that it has at its command, if there is an attempt to stem the reforms which must go through if Northern is to live in peace.
I do not want to see direct rule, because ultimately the people of Northern Ireland must decide their own future. There can be a very strong argument for direct rule for a temporary period, followed by constitutional reforms, not only at local government level but nationally with proportional representation, reforms not merely on paper but reforms which would be carried through by the House if the Unionist Party in Stormont is not able, because of its extremists, to carry them through there.
Successively we have seen one Unionist Prime Minister after another topple because of their failure to kowtow to the Right. Therefore, they resign in desperation rather than take on the Right. It may well be that if Mr. Faulkner does not succeed, direct rule may be the answer. There cannot be a great deal of confidence in a Government which includes Mr. West, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Taylor—especially Mr. West. Certainly assurances were given to him. The House would like to know what assurances were given to Mr. West to allow him to join a Government and to Mr. Bleakley which allowed him to join the same Government. They are strange bedfellows indeed. When Mr. Craig talks about the Government being given two months, one wonders whether they are slipping, Rhodesia fashion, from Right to extreme Right.
I should like to know whether the Government propose to get together at top level so that the Prime Ministers of this country and of the Republic of Ireland can discuss these differences rationally.
328
Although originally I had no intention of speaking in this debate, I felt that it was necessary for someone who had been involved in this for a considerable time and who has been attacked by certain hon. Members opposite as formenting trouble, to say that those of us who are concerned about civil rights have nothing but hostility and contempt for those who have used civil rights for ends other than those for which we have fought and nothing but contempt for those hon. Members opposite who kept silent and refused to admit the faults that there were in Northern Ireland when there was still time for them to corerct those faults.
Mr. McMaster: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that the organising secretary of the Civil Rights Movement in London recently admitted in the dock at the Old Bailey that he had been a lifelong member of the Irish Republican Army?
Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is again deliberately indulging in double talk, for he knows that the campaign for democracy and civil rights in Ulster contains no one of that sort. When I talk about the civil rights movement, the hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about, for he was one of the hon. Members six years ago, five years ago, and four years ago who refused to admit that there was a thing wrong in Northern Ireland, who told us that it was all a figment of our imagination, and who raised point of order after point of order to prevent the ventilation of legitimate grievances in the House. He put the lid on the pot which has now boiled over. If he wants to cross swords, I tell him that he and his hon. Friends are responsible for it.
I ask only that rationality can replace the rule of the gun, that reforms can replace reaction, that Ireland in the North can live at peace with itself and at peace with the Republic in an atmosphere of harmony and co-operation—there is great scope for economic and political cooperation across the border—and that reconciliation should replace bigotry. I do not think that there is any dichotomy between these two things—that the North can come closer to the South and that by so doing the Republic can come closer to the United Kingdom.

329
If British statesmen in the 19th century had not treated Ireland so abominably as they did, there would not be two separate countries today on two sides of the Irish Sea. There is still hope in a very tense and difficult situation and I believe that we must build on that hope. We will not build on it by the recriminations that pass between the hon. Member opposite and myself. We shall build on it only when we smash the ghetto mentality, the bigotry and the hatred which exist, when we ensure that Northern Ireland adopts the same standards in relation to political institutions and economic standards that we accept here.
Hon. Members who for years have prevented our moving towards that position have very little part to play. We who are sceptical of the ability of the Unionist Government at Stormont to achieve this have a right to be sceptical. As one hon. Gentleman said, this is their very last chance. If they do not take it, we in Westminster will have to seize it and see that these reforms go through.
7.43 p.m.
Mr. Norman St..John-Stevas: I do not think that there is any hon. Member who would be likely to under-estimate either the gravity or the difficulty of the situation in Northern Ireland.
Although the Leader of the Opposition has been praised for his speech, I find it impossible to join in that chorus, because I thought that his speech, though it was said to be framed with a helpful intent, was quite otherwise in its content. It was wounding in its phrases and full of innuendoes which will undoubtedly complicate the situation, rather than alleviate it.
The situation in Northern Ireland is so complex and the troubles there so deep-seated that there is no one in the House of whatever point of view who knows what the long-term solution to the problems of Northern Ireland is. All we know from a study of history is that English interventions in Irish history have almost invariably made matters worse, rather than better. That is the only record we have to go on.
Further, English people easily become bored with Irish affairs. They do not think that the Shankill Road is the centre of the universe. There is a trend in pub-
330
lic opinion in Britain in general—on this island—which wants to be shot of the whole problem. That is a dangerous but understandable feeling.
However, Northern Ireland is an intrinsic part of the United Kingdom. It may be a peculiar part. If it were not a peculiar part, we would not be facing any of these problems. It is an intrinsic part of the United Kingdom. Belfast and Londonderry are identical with cities such as London, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cardiff, in the sense that their citizens are as much entitled to go about their business unmolested and without fear of interference as are the citizens of any other city in the United Kingdom.
The attitude of the House today has been and should be sympathetic to rather than critical of the Government. This is not a party matter. It is not, fortunately—in this House, at any rate—even a sectarian one. In a situation where there are not lacking those who counsel extreme courses, the Government seek to ensure by their policies that reason and civility shall rule the forces of passion, hatred and violence which have been unleashed in Ulster. The Government have sought to control these forces through support of the Government at Stormont. This is a policy that the Government have been right to pursue.
There has been much speculation as to why Major Chichester-Clark resigned after playing the honourable and courageous role that he did. He went the same way as Lord O'Neill before him. Whatever nuances of interpretation there may be, I think that they both went ultimately for the same reason—they were decent, civilised and fair-minded men who eventually simply got tired, despaired of the folly, obstinacy and mean-mindedness of so many people who were involved about them.
Major Chichester-Clark has been succeeded by Mr. Faulkner. I know nothing personally about Mr. Faulkner, but what I know and have read publicly is encouraging. There has been speeches in which Mr. Faulkner has declared that his purpose is to be scrupulously fair to everyone under the law and that his wish is "to make Northern Ireland a better place to live in." Everyone will wish him well in those two objectives.

331
If Mr. Faulkner fails, Northern Ireland fails with him. It is not merely a question of constitutional change. It is a question of the Province going into a long decline in which the victims will be the inhabitants of Northern Ireland. An economic slump is ecumenical in that it makes no distinction of religion and it will put out of their jobs Catholics and Protestants alike. They will be united, if not in a common prosperity, then eventually in a common ruin.
Today the Home Secretary laid down once more the principles of Government policy—to put an end to terrorism, to encourage the Government at Stormont to press ahead with their reform programme, and to strengthen the economy of Northern Ireland. Those are principles with which no sensible person can possibly disagree, whatever dissent there may be about the details of implementation.
As for the first principle—putting an end to terrorism—I certainly wish to associate myself with the praise which has been given to our troops in Northern Ireland for their conduct. After all, six of those soldiers have been murdered, and our troops have shown a forbearance and restraint under intense provocation which is truly remarkable. If there is a dispute about military tactics, as to where British troops should or should not be stationed, surely, the people whose advice should be followed on such questions must be the military commanders themselves. It must be left to them.
We must remember, also, that nothing would better suit the extremists, be they of the I.R.A. or any other organisation, than to have British troops in an exposed position where they could be picked off, where further murders could be committed in order to exacerbate feeling.
Law and order must be maintained, but the security problem should not be considered as though it were alone in a vacuum. Security comes first in time, it is the necessary means, but security is not first in the order of ends. The end which all these measures are intended to achieve is a state of society in which the two communities can live together in peace and harmony.
In a situation in which the minority is disaffected and suspicious—I do not
332
pass on the reason why this is so; I merely point to the fact—the Government must be extremely careful not only to be impartial but to be seen to be impartial, and, above all, to avoid actions which might have the effect of driving the minority to make common cause with the terrorists, for, if that happened, both security and the political battles would be lost at the same time. At the moment, the minority of the community is quite distinct from the terrorists. The activities of the terrorists are condemned as much by Catholics as by Protestants, and they have been repudiated without qualification by Cardinal Conway and other members of the Irish hierarchy in terms as absolute as those uttered by any Protestant prelate.
In the promotion of harmony between the two communities, it is the reform programme which has the most important part to play. Of course, there will be no peace in Northern Ireland without reform. The Home Secretary gave us an impressive record of progress, but that progress must be maintained and reform must be fully implemented, especially in employment and housing.
We all know that behind the social, the security and the religious problems there looms the question of the Border. The position of the minority in Northern Ireland would not be so difficult were it not for the fact that many, though not all, of the minority have never accepted the Constitution. They want a united Ireland. But if Ireland is ever to be united—I have no a priori judgment against that solution—it must be by the free determination of the Irish people, whether they be in the North or in the South. The people who have to be persuaded that this is a reasonable and desirable solution to their problem are, in the main, the Protestants of Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), quoting Yeats, said that his terrible beauty was not to be found in Belfast. But it is not to be found in Dublin, either. Yeats' vision for Ireland has never been fulfilled, and those in the Republic who want a united Ireland must assess the changes which they will have to bring about in the life of the Republic if this is ever to become a reality. They must

333
ask themselves, is the price worth paying? They will transform a unitary society into a pluralist one. They will have to alter a great many of their laws. They will have to modify or sweep away laws governing abortion, contraception, divorce and censorship.
Mr. John Mendleson: All the better for it.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion, which, coming from him, causes me no surprise. But it would surprise me if it were the opinion of Mr. Lynch that the Republic of Ireland would be the better for those changes. Ireland would be transformed into a totally different society. It would be a different kind of society from that which it is today. Is the Republic prepared for this?
Mr. McNamara: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and I have some sympathy with certain of the points which he has just made, but is he trying to establish that the essence of Irishism and the Irish country lies in the fact that those Statutes stand upon their Statute Book or in the fact that the majority of the people willingly accept them as disciplines and would do so whether they were on the Statute Book or not?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am merely pointing out that, if people will the end, they must will the means; they must face the question fairly and squarely, not in an emotional way but looking at what will have to be done if that end is to be achieved. However, I had finished my argument on that point, and I was about to move on.
What is important in the short and medium term is the achievement of peace and concord in Northern Ireland now. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) spoke of people looking to Westminster for a guide in this direction. The solution to Northern Ireland's problems does not lie here in Westminster, however well intentioned Members of this House may be. It does not lie even in the hands of Parliament at Stormont. A solution to the problems of Northern Ireland will be brought about only by the people of Northern Ireland themselves. In that
334
they may be helped or hindered by laws, but the final decision rests with them.
What is needed in Northern Ireland is something way beyond politics and way beyond laws. It is a metanoia, a true conversion, a real altering of minds and hearts on the part of individuals, in whatever community they may find themselves. Surely, the time has now come to end the religious hatred and fanatacism which is still alive in Northern Ireland, from whatever source it comes. Those who exploit these passions succeed only in one way; they bring Christianity into disrepute, and they make agnosticism an attractive alternative.
How hideous it is that at Eastertide, of all periods of the year, the festival when we celebrate the triumph of the Prince of Peace, in Northern Ireland there should be fears and forebodings of the bloodshed, violence and disorder which this season will bring.
In the final analysis, there is only one way forward for the people of Northern Ireland to go, and that is for the members of both communities to stop hating one another and to begin—only to begin—to love one another. It really is as simple and as difficult as that.
8.0 p.m.
Miss Bernadette Devlin: In the small lull between last week's crisis and the possibility of next week's crisis, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides seem to be in a great deal of agreement. There is one point on which we can all agree, that the situation in the North of Ireland, give or take an immediate crisis, is not very healthy but is a very bad situation.
The situation is not helped by the fact that the majority of the British Press and major politicians of both parties in this country actively conspire to conceal the facts of what is happening in Northern Ireland from the British public—from the rest of the people in this country. For example, let us take Mr. Brian Faulkner. Mr. Brian Faulkner is our new Prime Minister. He has been projected to many Members of this House and to the public, through the Press and by many speakers in the House today, as a moderate, a tough-minded liberal, an able politician who will not give way to sectarian pressure from the Right wing of his own party. But how much does this reflection, this

335
portrayal of Mr. Faulkner, give us a picture of the man? What are the facts on Mr. Brian Faulkner, the third noble-minded gentleman to come to power in Northern Ireland?
I have no intention of denying his ability as a politician. I hope to explain that ability by giving not a condemnation of him in my words but a condemnation of him in his own. The Leader of the Opposition referred to voices from the past. It may not be too far in the past to go back to 1954. If we go to 12th July, 1954, we see the young Brian Faulkner, undoubtedly an able man and an astute brain, knowing, having his foot on the bottom rung of the political ladder of Tory Unionism, how ultimately to reach the top. Therefore, he says on the 12th July, 1954, platform:
"The Church of Rome runs the world-wide organisation which favours Irish republicanism as much today as ever in the past"
But, like hon. Members in this House today, he knows that one must talk about economics in order to get anywhere in political life, so later in his speech he says:
"There is no reason why Orangemen should not interest themselves in the economic welfare of the community. I mean by that statement that we should be anxious to find employment for our own brethren"
Perhaps hon. Members will say that that was a long time ago; perhaps the young Mr. Faulkner learnt something as he went along. He did. We find him in 1960, perhaps by coincidence on 12th July, stating quite openly:
"I have said it before, and I say it again, the Orange Order is the backbone of Ulster."
In 1967, still perfectly aware of what the backbone of Ulster was, he supported the main resolution which came before the Loyalist congregation on 12th July condemning the Rome-ward trend in Ulster. Yet in 1971 we find the same Mr. Brian Faulkner addressing the Ulster Unionist Council like a tough-minded liberal, and he says:
"If you want a get-tough, hard line on the Catholic community, you must look elsewhere."
I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do you have to look elsewhere for a hard line on the Catholic community?
Mr. Brian Faulkner would appear to be the last hope of this House for democ-
336
racy, but what is his record in defence of democracy? In February, 1967, he spoke in defence of the corrupt Derry Corporation, which was subsequently dismissed from power and replaced by a Commission. What had he to say? It was this:
"It is high time we answered back the unfair criticism levelled against local councils."
Mr. Brian Faulkner believes in an unarmed police force in 1971. On 17th August, 1969, when Bombay Street was burnt down, when there was a pogrom against the people in the Catholic ghetto areas of Belfast, what had he to say when asked a direct question at a Press conference about the "B" Specials and the police opening fire on the civilian population? He replied:
"The 'B' Specials returned fire. What do you expect them to do when they are shot at and killed?"
—[An HON. MEMBER:"Hear,hear."] With some astuteness of mind an hon. Gentleman opposite says, "Hear hear" He might do well to remember that not one solitary "B" Special was wounded, never mind killed, in 1969, and that Mr. Brian Faulkner was aware of the fact. But facts do not interfere with one's political ambition, it would appear.
The most significant remark which probably explains Mr. Brian Faulkner's role is that made at the first of our long list of crises, the possible fall of Captain Terence O'Neill from power. At a meeting then of the Unionist Parliamentary Party, he said:
"I see the beginnings"
—he was referring solely to the Unionist Party, and therefore solely to the Protestant population—
"of a class war, and I will do all in my power to see that it goes no further."
Either this tough-minded liberal, Mr. Faulkner, has had a Damascus-to-Downing Street conversion or it is not that he does not like Catholics, not that he will have perhaps a hard line on Catholics, but that the truth of the matter is that the man portrayed in the British Press as the third in a line of liberals is a hard-necked political reactionary who has on public platforms in Northern Ireland made his way to the ton by mouthing sectarian obscenities, and that he is a man whose political word is not worth its weight in dirt.

337
That is the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. I condemn him only out of his own mouth.
If that has been the portrayal of the rôle of Mr. Brian Faulkner in the Press, if the double-dealing and dishonesty has been such in his case, it has been much more so on the rôle of the British Army, the I.R.A. and the whole area known in Northern Ireland as security. In 1969, when the Army was sent to Northern Ireland, it stopped the pogroms in Belfast. There were many pepole, myself included, who believed at the time that there was more to sending the Army to Northern Ireland than the humanitarianism of stopping pogroms, that the Government at the time were not so much opposed to pogroms as such but realised that this particular one, if it were allowed to continue, would upset the balance of power between the ruling classes of the United Kingdom and those of the Republic of Ireland. I do not intend to go back into that theory again, but I hope that by explaining a number of incidents to the House hon. Members may see that lies are never very helpful, and they are consistently told in this House.
Let us consider the rôle of the British Army in a number of incidents, and the portrayal of the British Army in the Press in this country. Three British soldiers were shot in the North of Ireland. What was the attitude in this country? Let us examine it again, not out of my words but out of what the British public was told. The Sun on the morning of 11th March was typical. Under the headline
"Troops massacred by I.R.A. gun gang"
it ran the report:
"Three British soldiers were kidnapped at gunpoint and murdered in cold blood by an I.R.A. execution squad last night."
No "ifs", no "buts", no "perhapses". It was stated in that newspaper as fact.
Perhaps I may refresh the memories of hon. Members about that incident. The national Press continued in that vein for the whole of that day. These were the headlines;
The Daily Express:
"Angry Hunt for I.R.A. Killers."
The Daily Mirror:
"Big Hunt for I.R.A. Killers."
The Evening News:
"I.R.A. Murder Hunt."
The Sun:
"Murder by the I.R.A."
The Daily Telegraph:
"Shot Dead in an I.R.A. Ambush."
So, for the whole day and right through the following week, it continued. There is not and was not, and I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us that there still is not, one shred of evidence on which to base what was claimed as fact by every major newspaper in this country—that the I.R.A. killed the three British soldiers. This has an effect on people in Northern Ireland because they read British newspapers and they can see what is put across as propaganda to ordinary working-class people here.
Let us come to the other side of the story. The British Press does not act in isolation of politics. We must ask ourselves what was the motive of running that kind of story. How could every newspaper do it? I believe that it was done to soften up public opinion for the possibility of imposing, if necessary, more oppressive measures in Northern Ireland in order to shore up Tory Unionism.
Mr. Simon Mahon: There must have been many hon. Members who heard the most disgraceful interview ever heard on the reliable B.B.C.—with what was purported to be a responsible I.R.A. leader, who did not deny the murder of these three soldiers.
Miss Devlin: Perhaps I may correct the hon. Gentleman. Every faction of the I.R.A. clearly and publicly stated their denial of any involvement in that incident. I know of the interview to which he is referring. The man was asked questions on the basis of his sympathies and attitudes, not about his action on that point.
Mr. Delargy: It may be within the recollection of the House that, earlier today, I raised this matter and the Grand Master of the Orange Order told me that he never accused the I.R.A. of committing these murders. Why, then, the attacks on my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)? I also said that I was convinced that the Home Office does not believe that the I.R.A. did these murders. Let us have no more nonsense in interruptions of a very good speech.
Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman must not quote me and the Home Office in this matter. A crime was committed. The police are trying to find out who did it. Until that is discovered, no one can possibly express a view.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Before I ask the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) to resume her speech, I hope the House will remember the great number of hon. Members still waiting to speak.
Miss Devlin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the words of the Home Office, through the mouth of the Home Secretary, will be taken by members of the British Press in the Gallery. No one with any responsibility had a right to express a view, let alone as a statement of fact, on a matter like this. That is the point I am trying to make.
Let us consider not only that aspect but also the aspect that credence is given to the idea that everyone who is shot or shot at in Northern Ireland is a terrorist, that the British Army can do no wrong, that the dead and wounded are all terrorists. One again comes to the main point of the honesty and integrity of the Press, of the response of people in this country to the facts of what is happening in Northern Ireland. Let us take the case of Bernard Watt.
On the morning of 6th February, Mr. Watt was shot dead in the streets of Belfast by the British Army. He had no stones; he had no petrol bombs; he had no guns. He was an ordinary working" class citizen of Belfast, and he was shot dead by the British Army.
A reporter for The Guardian, Mr. Simon Winchester, was present when that happened. He wrote in his report, published in the early Manchester editions of The Guardian, what he had seen take place—that Bernard Watt was shot down by a British soldier for no seemingly good reason. Hon. Members will find that in the early Manchester editions of The Guardian. But the editions they are most likely to have read are the final London editions of The Guardian, and I quote directly from that. It carried the official Army line. It said that Bernard Watt was
"…a rioter who threw two petrol bombs at an armoured car in Butler Street."
The following Monday, Mr. Winchester, presumably to set his own record straight,
340
again had an article of his own in The Guardian. He said:
"Similarly, the Army's action in the Crumlin Road on Saturday morning after an armoured car had been set on fire was the act of a military and not a civil force. Whatever may have been said subsequently, there is no doubt that the troops had fired deliberately at a group who they thought had been responsible for burning out their vehicle. There was no suggestion at the time that the troops had been returning fire. No enemy shots had been fired at that time. The Army shot and killed Barney Watt as they might have shot an Arab guerrilla—not for what he had done but for what he was."
I say it once again to the people who have a responsibility for the facts, a responsibility for creating peace and harmony in Northern Ireland, and I put it as a challenge from this House to the editor of The Guardian, Mr. Alistair Hetherington—no less than the Journalist of the Year—to deny that what appeared under the by-line of Mr. Simon Winchester in the London editions of The Guardian of 6th February was a story concocted in the editorial office of The Guardian in order to condone the cold-blooded murder of Bernard Watt.
The effect of all this on the people of Northern Ireland is that the ordinary people feel that they can be shot, that they can be terrified, that they can be terrorised, but that politicians will continue to slander and the Press continue to libel them and that they have no redress.
I put it to this House that such activities are not solving the Northern Ireland problem. I have said before and I say again that repression will not work. I reiterate the demand for something that I believe will work, and I add to that at this stage, without qualification, what I have not said before—that the Government should withdraw the Army, give us a democratically elected police force and allow the peace-keeping role to be taken over by peace-keeping forces of trade unionists inside the factories, because the role of the Army has become a bad progression.
Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) has made serious charges against The Guardian which clearly should be followed up and the truth should be uncovered, as Sir Arthur Young endeavoured to uncover it in previous cases when the R.U.C. was concerned.

341
However, has she no good word to say for the Army as a whole and its behaviour in Northern Ireland? Has she nothing to say about the plea she made to me personally on the telephone two years ago asking that British troops should be sent there, because she knew that they were the only forces likely to keep the peace? Has she no good word to say about their bearing since?
Miss Devlin: If for the last time in this House I may correct the right hon. Gentleman; I remember well not only that telephone conversation—I made the call from Bogside—but the 74-word telegram which I sent to him days beforehand warning him of what was liable to happen. I did not ask for his military Army; I asked for his police, and if he goes back over his little tape recorder, which was humming merrily in the background at the time, he will find that that is so. [Laughter.]
Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: Spies under the bed, Jim! You wicked man!
Miss Devlin: The problem of Northern Ireland remains as it was there before 1968. What must be done to solve the housing problem is to enact legislation to wipe out the crippling debt of the house-building authority. To solve our unemployment problem, which existed long before a stone was thrown, the House and the Government must recognise the absolutely dismal failure of private enterprise in Northern Ireland and institute State-owned industries under the democratic control of the people. Existing private industries in Northern Ireland must be forced to recognise their responsibility, and, in the transitional period, forced to reinvest in Northern Ireland part of their profits made out of our labour.
To implement such measures requires something more than the Government here. They would not implement these policies, because they are against their economic ideology. The measures are anti-Tory and the Government are Tory.
Therefore, I direct my call not just to the deaf ears of the Government opposite, but from this House to the Socialists in Britain and to the Irish community in Britain. Up and down the country rankand-file trade unionists are organising to defend their standards of living, their rights and their wages. I urge Irish
342
workers in this country to get into the trade unions in this country and to get into that struggle and to work for their own class, to bring down the Government and to bring down the system that affects not only this country but the people of Northern Ireland. I urge the people in Northern Ireland to work together in their factories for the same demands as transitional steps on the way to a Socialist Ireland. I call on all the groups in the various parts of the North of Ireland, this country and the Republic of Ireland to start working towards the kind of Socialist policies which mean that working-class people can live together and enjoy the benefits of their labour.
One of the most important things that can be done is for Sinn Fein to state, and state quite clearly, at this time that there will be no attempt, and that there is no attempt, on their part and nor will they tolerate an attempt by anyone else to coerce or to shoot the Protestant people of Ulster into a 32-county republic to which they do not want to belong. If they make that clear, they will have the grounds for Protestant and Catholic working-class support for their radical social and economic policies in the North of Ireland.
Rather than kid oneself that one can form a parliamentary opposition in a vacuum in Stormont. as the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) seems to think, I believe that the S.D.L.P in the North of Ireland, the People's Democracy, the North of Ireland Labour Party, the Socialists within all those groups and in the smaller groups, must work towards the achievement of a working-class Socialist programme to solve our unemployment problem and to bring us democratic control of industries, to bring us democratic control of the police and to prevent our people from being sold into the slavery of the Common Market, and ultimately to break down not only this House, not only the Government here, but the Government in Dublin and the Government sitting in the North or Ireland and to institute democratic control of the people.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. John E. Maginnis: The debate began on a note of cautious optimism. With few exceptions, that note

343
has permeated the debate. One important fact has emerged from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and that of the Leader of the Opposition—it would be disastrous if we in this House, no matter what our political persuasions, became divided on the Northern Ireland issue. Only by a united effort by the whole of this House will the democratic rule of law and order return to Northern Ireland. I welcome the words of the Government and the Opposition on this matter.
Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) I was shocked, as was the rest of the populace of Northern Ireland, by the deaths not only of the three soldiers, but of members of our gallant police force. These men died so that the people of Northern Ireland as individuals would have the right to decide their future democratically and not by the rule of the gun.
The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) has quoted profusely from the newspapers. I was recently reading a report in the Irish Times concerning the amount of money being allocated to relief in Northern Ireland. The House will be aware that the Dáil Public Accounts Committee held an inquiry into whether this money was spent on the purchase of arms for use in Northern Ireland. There was one significant passage which I should like to quote. It is as follows:
"Captain Kelly gave the committee details of arms bought on the Continent. The total cost was £42,750 including the £8,500 advanced by Mr. Albert Luykx.
Four hundred sub-machine guns, at a cost of £16 each, were bought. There was also 25 heavier types of machine guns, at about £30 each, 40 bullet-proof vests at about £70 each, and about a quarter of a million rounds of ammunition at about 9d. each. There were about 400 pistols at about £25 each."
The one name that crept into my thinking was the name Albert Luykx. After listening to the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition about international organisations taking part in the affairs of Northern Ireland, I wondered whether this was the same man previously referred to as Albert Lynx. He was a Nazi war criminal, sentenced in Belgium to the death penalty, which was later commuted to life imprisonment. He escaped and is now believed to be living in the Irish Republic. We also
344
had recently in Belfast students who did not belong to the Kingdom at all and who were arrested on certain charges. It seems that outside influences have been brought to bear.
What pressures have been brought to bear on the Southern Irish Government by Her Majesty's Government to find out what can be done to stop this infiltration from outside bodies and the training of I.R.A. personnel in the Irish Republic? Recently a young man from Belfast named Tony Henderson died, so a report says, during a training session in the Wicklow Mountains. I agree that the Irish Republic Premier, Jack Lynch, is making an effort to help in this serious situation in Northern Ireland and I take it to be an honest effort.
At the same time it should be made clear to the Government of the Irish Republic that all possible steps must be taken to eliminate this evil in their midst as we are trying to eliminate it in Northern Ireland. The Leader of the Opposition made a very good speech and on one or two occasions referred, perhaps jocularly, to the Apprentice Boys and later the Orange Order, saying that all these things should be cast on one side. Would he go so far as to abolish the Beefeaters, the House of Peers, the Tolpuddle Martyrs' March and various other events which take place here?
The majority of members of the Orange institution are loyal citizens of the United Kingdom. They do not want to create a situation in which law and order cannot exist in Northern Ireland. I have been a member of that institution for nearly 40 years and have never heard anyone say that they hated their brother Roman Catholic who lived in the same area.
All this talk about the division among the population in Northern Ireland, the war of attrition and all the rest is idle talk. The main problem facing us is a confrontation between the forces of law and order and the forces of anarchism. The Hunt Report has been mentioned today along with other reports which have been made in Northern Ireland. Many hon. Members opposite have criticised the Northern Ireland Government for not introducing reforms but now criticise them for having done so.
I listened carefully to the attack made on the present Prime Minister by the hon.

345
Member for Mid-Ulster. She read extracts from his speeches. I would like to put the record straight. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) have said on numerous occasions that what they want is a revolution, not only in Northern Ireland but the whole of Ireland.
Mr. Fitt: I never said that in my life.
Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Member has said that on several occasions, that he wants to see a Communist Socialist Republic over the whole of the country.
Mr. Fitt: The hon. Member is out in the sea.
Mr. Maginnis: I am not. The majority of people in Northern Ireland want to remain citizens of the United Kingdom —and is there anything wrong in that? There is not. I was born under Westminster. That may seem a long time ago. The Unionists of the day never wanted Ireland divided. They wanted to remain under Westminster, but they agreed to the compromise of the 1920 Act. If hon. Gentlemen have read the Act they will recall that both Parliaments in Ireland were set up under that Act, including a Council of Ireland in which both sides could discuss their problems at high level, but this did not get off the ground.
There is nothing wrong with the desire of the majority in Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. There are certain elements in our community who want to get us out of the United Kingdom by the rule of the gun, but this will not succeed. I was glad to hear the Home Secretary reiterate that this would not succeed. We must get back to the democratic process which this country has had for hundreds of years, and we must realise that people cannot be forced into any situation. One man can lead a horse to the water but a thousand will not make him drink.
There is a way out. If we in this House seriously believe that the majority of Northern Ireland citizens want to remain part of the United Kingdom, it is up to us to give them every assistance. I am firmly convinced that when all this nonsense about political reform and the rest has passed into oblivion we shall see a report of the Royal Commission on
346
the Constitution which, as was hinted at earlier in the debate, will hope to see the day when both sides in Ireland will come back within the United Kingdom despite all their differences.
I remember in 1968 making a particular note of the item contained in the Queen's Speech about the Commission on the Constitution. In this context something could be done to solve this ever-recurring problem in Ireland as a whole. Here is the basis for the return of both sides in Ireland under Westminster, with two regional Parliaments. This may seem a pipe dream, but pipe dreams sometimes come true. I should like the message to go out from this House today that we Members of the Unionist Party here feel that we have a great responsibility on our shoulders, as every hon. Member has, and I hope that nothing will be said in the House today to exacerbate the situation.
I pay tribute to the work of the Army in Northern Ireland. The Army has a difficult task. Its object is to forget who is Protestant and who is Roman Catholic and to search for arms where it is thought that they are. This is the Army's real objective. If the hon. Member for Belfast, West would look at the recent Press reports, he would see that throughout the whole of Northern Ireland, not only in the City of Belfast, area by area has been searched. One of my constituents, a Protestant, is now in gaol because arms were found in his house which he perhaps was not aware of. To say that the Army searches only in Roman Catholic areas is quite false.
In 1970 there was a wages review by the Sugar Confectionery and Food Preserving Wages Council and an award of 7½d. became effective last July to the food preserving industry in Northern Ireland, and another 2d was added last December. This bears very heavily on the apple canning and apple growing industry in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I ask my hon. Friends to use their influence to see whether something can be done to stop the flood of imports of Italian canned apples. Up to the end of December, 1970, no fewer than 7,512 tons of Italian canned apples were landed on our shores. Yet we have approximately 40,000 tons

347
of home-grown Bramley apples in store for which there are very few markets.
If we take seriously the suggestion of both sides of the House that we need an injection of capital in Northern Ireland to get industry going again, I hope that the basic industry of agriculture, and particularly the apple-growing industry, which employs directly or indirectly 6,000 people—no mean figure—will not be forgotten. I plead with the Government to do something to stop the import of apples. I am firmly convinced, despite all the arguments to the contrary, that these apples were purchased by the European Economic Commission and were then taken off the market. It seems to me that these apples are finding their way into the canning industry in Italy and have been sent to the United Kingdom to the detriment of our own apple-growing industry.
I have had to cut down my speech. If I had said all I had intended to say, it would have lasted, not 10 minutes, but most of half an hour. I apologise if my speech has been patchy. There is a will in Northern Ireland to get out of our difficulties. I hope that people on both sides of the political fence, including mine, will exercise the utmost caution during the religious festival period we are about to enter. I hope that no one in Northern Ireland will mar the religious festival of Easter by resorting to violence. If we can get through this period safely, and if a little common sense is exercised, there is no reason why there should not be a bright future for the people living in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Before calling the next speaker, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that seven back bench Members still hope to get the opportunity to speak.
8.44 p.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: In view of the speech of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis), I should first ask for an undertaking from the Government that any Italian canned apples going into Northern Ireland will not be imported through Dublin and not bought with funds supplied by the Irish Republican Government. Perhaps I can now turn to some of
348
the more important points raised in the debate.
First, we should congratulate the Unionist Members on the wonderful brain-washing job they did on their right hon. and hon. Friends at that famous meeting of the Home Affairs and the 1922 Committee, as a result of which the right hon. Members for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) delivered speeches which, to a large extent, were out of character with them and their public protestations, particularly that of the right hon. Member for Ashford, which contained statements whose implications were rather alarming.
The right hon. Member for Ashford said that we were seeing in Northern Ireland purely and simply an armed militant minority and then implied that it was part of an international conspiracy. He almost fell into the trap of suggesting that we had there a nasty little militant organisation coming into an otherwise peaceful and happy scene in Northern Ireland and creating trouble where it had never existed before. But the evils and the difficulties were there. If people have come in and exploited them, it is because of the 50 years of neglect by Unionist Government in what was known as Britain's slum.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) spoke with a proper regard for history when he referred to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader if the Opposition about the canonisation of a certain Dutch nobleman in the Calendar of Saints of the Northern Ireland Presbyterian Church. But one of the difficulties of the situation is that the people of Ireland have created not only their saints and heroes but their own demonology and given to them an authority and importance far beyond their status. Perhaps I might give one example by quoting some words of the hon and gallant Gentleman:
"The last war resulted in a great drawing together of people but alas and unfortunately in 1964 there was the return of a Labour Government at Westminster. This is the fount and origin of all our troubles in Ulster. Make no mistake about it, in that great Labour victory was brought to the House of Commons a gang of people—the Paul Roses, the Stanley Ormes, the Kevin McNamaras and all the

349
rest—to join Michael Foot, and the old radical mischief makers bent on making trouble."
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and Mr. Justice Cameron will no doubt wonder what their effort was about. What is Scarman doing? This is to fly in the face of all the existing evidence. To suggest that Paul, Stan and Kevin, or any two of them, represent a working majority in any unholy trinity of the demonology of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South is exaggerating the case somewhat. What nonsense and foolishness this is. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman believes that and says it on a public platform, what sort of nonsense does he peddle to his own followers in the Orange Order? He speaks with a forked tongue.
I want now to comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), and I warned her of my intention. I believe that she did a disservice to the cause which she and I and many others on these benches support and to the motives which lead people to support many of the principles in which she believes.
My hon. Friend suggested that the Duke of Wellington's own Yorkshire Regiment went into Londonderry in August of that fateful year to bolster up British imperialism and to save British capital. She knows perfectly well that the reason why it went in was to stop the "B" Specials being thrown in as the last reserve behind the Royal Ulster Constabulary. She knows that, on the first evening of the disturbances, I telephoned my right hon. Friend and asked for the British Army to be sent to protect the people of the Bogside. She knows that, when the troubles occurred in Belfast, the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) telephoned me at my parents' home in Liverpool on the Sunday asking me to get in touch with the Home Office in London—an Irish way of going about it—in order to get troops in to protect the Mater Hospital because gangs were mustering in the streets and adopting a threatening attitude.
To suggest that a Labour Government sent in British troops to do other than protect the lives of our fellow citizens is both a disgraceful and a lying history of the truth of the matter, and it is to attribute an objective to the British Army
350
which no one on this side would countenance it serving.
When they went in they carried out a difficult rôle and one which was welcomed by the people whom the hon. Lady claimed to represent. That is still the situation despite these times of tremendous difficulties—there has been a change of Government, but there have been firm statements from both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that they will continue the policy which we started. We have no reason to doubt them. They are honourable men, even if, on occasion, they are tainted by original sin, and therefore they will keep to what they have said.
This is our policy, and the hon. Lady is wrong to draw all sorts of queer conclusions from the attitude of the Press to a particularly horrible incident in Northern Ireland, when those three soldiers were killed, and to conclude that this was the official policy of the British Government or that this was being officially peddled in one particular way.
The Guardian can speak for itself, but I must say, in defence of the right hon. Gentleman, that he deliberately refused to point his finger at anyone as the cause of the deaths of these three soldiers. I would hate to think that the time had come when the British Press, which is not particularly favourable to my party, and which shows all the evils of capitalism in many ways, was peddling a line dictated to it by a British Government. That would be a very bad thing.
I hope that, in this way, I have kept honours even, by attacking the hon. Members for Down, South and Mid-Ulster, both of whom have done nothing to help in this situation. I want to turn now to some more constructive thoughts.
First, on gun licences. In August, 1969, my right hon. Friend said that there were too many guns in Northern Ireland—67,000. In 1971, the number of licences—not necessarily guns— is 73,000, an increase of 6,000 in two years. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we must call in all the arms which are not needed for agricultural purposes, for keeping down vermin and rodents. It has to be done, because otherwise, no matter what promises are made, the amnesty will not

351
succeed. If a person is killed, it does not matter whether the bullet conies from a legal gun or an illegal one. The people in Belfast remember that when Bombay Street and the other streets were being burned down, most of the bullets came from legal guns, and they did not draw so nice a distinction.
While there are rifle clubs and while people legally hold guns who are thought of as supported, tolerated or accepted by the Government, people will keep their illegal guns, and the amnesty will not succeed. Figures were read out of the numbers of weapons which had come in, as though it were a list of great battle honours. They were nothing. The guns must be brought into a central armoury—
Mr. Pounder: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe that a withdrawal of gun licences will have the corresponding effect of bringing in the illegal arms? Goodness knows how many there are. If he does believe this, how does he propose to accomplish the feat?
Mr. McNamara: I am suggesting that, while there are so many legally held guns, people will continue to hold guns illegally, because they fear that the legal ones may be used against them. If we draw in the legal arms we shall be in a situation in which we can be accused of impartiality. Every area must be searched, not just minority areas, where guns are thought to be held illegally.
There have been a number of leaks in the Press that Crowther Report might come out with a special report on Northern Ireland with some provision about proportional representation. If this is the intention, it should be introduced now before the introduction of the new local government boundaries. To introduce it afterwards, unless the boundaries are drawn with that in mind, would render the exercise nugatory.
I welcome discussions taking place with Dublin, having called for them on a number of occasions. The Minister of Commerce in the North has accepted the invitation of the Prime Minister of Southern Ireland to discuss economic problems. I am also glad that the Government have kept to a regional policy for Northern Ireland. It is part
352
of the United Kingdom and I would argue that what is good for Ulster is good for Merseyside, the North-East, North Hull and parts of Yorkshire, and I hope that we shall get some of the sort of development that they have been getting in Ulster.
In the South of Ireland a learned and distinguished cleric has written a pastoral on the subject of personal morality which I regard as detrimental to the situation. If we are to have a united Ireland we must have a pluralistic society. If we are to have a united state it should be a secular state in which personal moralities and Christian principles are accepted by people for what they are, not because of any force of law of the State, so that contraceptive pills and pornographic literature are not smuggled in from this country and people do not come over here for their abortions.
The rôle of the State is to protect and strengthen the family, not to impose upon people particular standards of morality. This has to be accepted by the South if they want people in the North to enter into an association with them. I am sorry that people should look to the State to bolster up a rôle which the Church should have because it is convincing people of the logicality of its special, divine rôle in life. If the Church looks for that sort of support from the State it deserves all the criticism about clericalism and obscurantism that it gets.
8.59 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is not possible to make my speech in five minutes but I will endeavour to do so.
Mr. Fitt: Too long.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I will go on for ten minutes then. Since on previous occasions I have condemned violence from all quarters I do not want anyone to think that, because tonight I want to draw especial attention to I.R.A. activity, I am not prepared to condemn subversion from whatever group. Behind the recent disturbances many folks would argue that there has been, not too far in the background, the sinister figure of I.R.A. subversion.
We have heard mention in the House today about where the blame lies in regard to certain matters. But when Gunner Curtis was shot, we saw on television

353
two I.R.A. men who made it clear that they had the right to say what British soldiers they would shoot and under which circumstances. What is more, in the streets of Belfast we have had provocative I.R.A. funerals, which one hon. Member opposite this afternoon tried to justify. Murders by the I.R.A. have been admitted. The life of a policeman is just as valuable as the life of a soldier and the life of any civilian is equally valuable. We must not forget that two policemen were gunned down in the streets of Belfast, that the Army returned the fire and that one of the individuals, an I.R.A. provisional, who was shot, was taken over the border and was recently released from a hospital in Dublin.
We have also heard talk today of Mr. Jack Lynch and his hand of friendship for the North of Ireland. Terrorism can survive only when, first of all, there is a training ground on which terrorists can be trained. Last Sunday another young Belfast man, an I.R.A. provisional volunteer, was accidentally shot, we are told, on an I.R.A. training ground in the Republic of Ireland. If Mr. Lynch wants to demonstrate his real friendship for the North of Ireland, there must immediately be an extradition treaty which covers political murder. When a policeman or soldier is murdered in Northern Ireland and those responsible can find safe sanctuary across in the Republic, the situation is impossible to face and equally impossible to defeat.
There has been a good deal of talk about "no go" areas. Today the Home Secretary said that more warrants were now being executed in those areas than has occurred before. The Minister of Home Affairs was recently questioned on this matter in Stormont. He was asked a question about attacks on members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary during normal patrols. The reply dealt with the B district, which is part of the district relating to the "no go" areas, and was on the lines that in 1965 two people attacked policemen and two people were apprehended and brought before the courts. In 1970, 811 people were attacked and only 18 were apprehended. How can anyone contend that the writ of law runs in these areas? We also know that in 1965 in the D district, which includes another "no go" area, 11 attacks were made on policemen and 10
354
people were apprehended. In 1970, 200 attacks were made on policemen and only 17 people were apprehended. These are hard facts.
An editorial in the Daily Telegraph on 23rd March hit the nail on the head so far as Ulster people are concerned. That editorial said:
"The so-called 'no go' areas can be entered by the police with heavy military escorts and the Army can drive through them at high speed. For the rest, however, they are free from interference by the representatives of public power. Every writ that is successfully served, every distraint that is successfully carried out and every arrest that is made is nowadays carefully totted up to be paraded as proof that police authority has been restored. But the fact remains that crime flourishes within these fortresses."
In a recent raid by the military on premises in Leesson Street about 200 car keys were found, and we know from Stormont that 189 cars were burned recently in these areas. These are some of the things that cause concern to Ulster people.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said that I was opposed to the Hunt proposals. He knows perfectly well that I am opposed to using the Hunt Report in order to refuse to give the Royal Ulster Constabulary the fire power necessary to retaliate when attacked by terrorists. I have asked whether there cannot be armed protection at police stations and have been told that it is an impossibility. I ask hon. Members here to consider how a police station, attacked by terrorists with machine guns, can resist the attack unless the policemen have sufficient fire power.
That is something quite different from a general rearming of the police. There are some areas where there is no need for the police to be armed, but it is wrong to make members of the R.U.C. sitting ducks for terrorist pot-shots, particularly when we remember that those taking the pot-shots can skip across the Border to freedom from apprehension.
My time has gone, and I want to make only one comment on the birthday homily which the Leader of the Opposition was pleased to give me this afternoon. He spoke of humility, and having looked into his record my only comment is that example is better than precept.
9.8 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: It is well known that it is always the devil who can quote the best texts, and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is living up to that aphorism.
In the time at my disposal I want to divide my remarks into three parts, and to discuss each quite shortly. First, there is the issue of what has became known as law and order, although I have heard the Home Secretary say on other occasions that he does not like the phrase—he used it many times this afternoon—but prefers "freedom under the law", which is also my personal preference. Secondly, there is the question of unemployment and the economy and, thirdly, the issue of the constitution and the politics of Northern Ireland. These three seem to be the issues upon which the House has focused today.
I must also say at the outset that I, too, regret the years in which we did not discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland. Although we may well have thought that we were right to keep the subject out of the House, our debates and discussions have had an emollient effect, if that is possible in Northern Ireland, and have also had some impact as long as both parties have been able to speak broadly along the same lines.
That is of very great importance indeed, because Northern Ireland is a very introspective place. The people there constantly feed not only on their own myths but on their own demonology, and it is useful that this House can turn on the affairs of Northern Ireland a sympathetic yet objective eye. We have had examples of this from both sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), both of whom have made visits recently, had much to say about the situation that is worthy of very careful consideration by everyone who either represents that area or who lives there.
The only thing I fear is that our words, although widely reported, are not as carefully listened to as their value merits. Much of the time, as I have sat here, I have felt that although we have had a rational, sensible debate, and a constructive debate too, it is far removed from the
356
atmosphere in particular areas of Northern Ireland, which one finds as one moves around. The two hon. Members who got nearest to it, as they have before, are the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim, North, because they were discussing the politics in the raw that Northern Ireland itself talks about.
Do not say that the people of Northern Ireland cannot unite. They can. I had a unique experience last week outside the Ulster Hall. When I finished a tumultuous meeting, a group of Protestant women rushed my car and kicked the panels, and the women sang in unison,"Go home, you bum". Forty miles away, the next day, in Newry, I was chased down the main street by a group of Irish Republican youths. They chanted in unison"Go home, you bum". Never tell me that the Irish Catholics and Protestants cannot unite. They succeeded admirably.
On the situation in Belfast and the "no go" areas, almost everything that has been said today, from the Home Secretary onwards, is true. What the Home Secretary told us was true. With respect, what the hon. Member for Antrim, North said was true. It is a most complex situation. I happened to be walking around in the "no go" areas last week. It would not be true, as the Daily Telegraph said according to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, that the Army drive through at high speed. I can only say that I saw, in this area, an Army truck, stationary, with the soldiers there walking around, certainly with their weapons, but walking around in the same way that they would around any other part of Belfast—but, I am glad to say, as they would not walk around any of the major cities of Great Britain.
One tends to see the police standing on the fringes of the area. I did not see any of them inside the area. They have great difficulty in getting inside the area. It is no use blinking this fact. I return to what I have said on an earlier occasion. This is not a new phenomenon, nor has it existed only since the troubles of August, 1969. Those areas are like some areas in this country at the turn of the century, in the sense that they have never been adequately policed—never. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the

357
Opposition said that we must not give way to panic, pressure or prejudice, and he congratulated the Government on not doing so. But unless we get this fact clearly in our minds, that what we are asking the Army and the R.U.C. to do is immediately to undertake policing of areas that have never been adequately policed, we shall not know the commensurate size of the problem which we are asking them to undertake.
There are other areas in the world, after all, where very few police are to be found, such as in certain parts of Washington, New York, Rio de Janeiro and a number of other capitals. This is a phenomenon not to be brushed under the carpet. I hope that I am not doing that. I want to put it in perspective.
I had a talk with Cardinal Conway about this problem because clearly he, like everyone else, is deeply concerned about this matter. I believe that he and some of his helpers have ideas which would enable the R.U.C. to be introduced into the so-called "no go" areas where —I repeat—sometimes people go and sometimes they do not go. I believe that this would be possible, but it must be handled with care. The situation must not be rushed. It must be done slowly if the basic element of long-term successful policemanship is to prevail, namely, that the police work with the public and not against the public.
It is no use thrusting policemen into those areas if the first result of an over-zestful thrust is to turn those who live in those areas against the police who are being introduced into the areas. This is why I am ready to leave to the judgment of the R.U.C. and the military, subject to continuous political oversight, the pace and the extent to which people should be introduced into those areas to police them.
I want to make my position clear, though I do not think that the House needs to be clear. I want to see these areas policed as well as any other areas. They are not being policed as well as other areas at present. Yet it is vital that they should be properly policed. I say this having had experience of talking to ordinary people and entering their homes. I went into the home of an old-age pensioner and his wife. They were Protestants. Their bed was tucked
358
against the wall away from the window, around the corner, because they were living in fear every night of some explosion, of stones being thrown, of some violence that would disturb them.
We must say to the people of Ireland that if we are to ensure that they, whoever they may be, can live their lives quietly in their homes, they must accept that the police are their best safeguards, and the police must accept a rôle and be doubly—no, trebly—careful about the way in which they handle their entry into areas that they have never before policed properly.
Mr. McMaster: Does not the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the situation in "no go" areas in Northern Ireland and those in such places as Washington and Rio de Janeiro, in that in Northern Ireland there are openly seditous forces at work which have intimidated and terrorised the people in those areas and resulted in 50 deaths in those areas in the past 18 months?
Mr. Callaghan: I have not much time, so perhaps I could return to that point a little, except that I should say immediately that the hon. Gentleman puts only one side of it. He, too, must remember that two years ago there was a genuine fear among the minority in Ireland that they would be victimised by the police, that their homes would be invaded by the police.
Mr. McMaster Mr. McMaster indicated dissent.
Mr. Callaghan: It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head, because if we cannot establish this as a fact there is no hope of our trying to get a new policy. This is a fact. Those in the minority were in fear. The hon. Gentleman may regret it, but it was a very real fact. It was because of this fact that the Army had to go in. Let us start from there and move on from that point. That is all that I am saying to the hon. Gentleman.
I come to one point which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition amongst others. I ask the Government to put clearly to the Army and to the Security Committee in Northern Ireland whether they believe that the forthcoming processions should go on. I am not referring only to the

359
Easter processions. I am referring to the processions over the next six months, over the summer season. I agree with the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher) about this matter. There is no doubt that maximum tension has been roused when processions have taken place.
I should be willing to accept the advice of the military and of the Security Committee if they, having considered the matter, decided that on balance it was better that the processions should be allowed to continue and be contained rather than that they should be stopped. However, I think that the military and the Security Committee should be faced with this alternative. Judging from what I have heard in the House today, I would say that if the military and the Security Committee were to decide that the processions should be stopped there would be no criticism from the House. If things then went wrong, the House would believe that it was something that had been genuinely tried in an attempt to take the heat out of the situation.
I am not one who wants to ban processions, for obvious reasons. However, I put this in all seriousness to the Government. This means all the processions. It means the processions on 12th July as well as the processions of the Hibernians at Easter. If we were to ask for the considered judgment of the Army and of the Security Committee, I for one would be willing to accept what they said. I should like the Army and the Security Committee to know that, if they decided to ban, they would, I believe, have the support of the House of Commons in doing that, if they thought that it was the right decision.
I turn now to the problem of unemployment and the economy. Everybody who goes to Northern Ireland and everybody who lives there knows that what is needed is a raging, tearing campaign to get people back to work there. It is a situation which in some ways takes me back to the 1930s in South Wales, for in some of the small Irish towns in the North the young men who are hurling stones and have nothing better to do never had a job since they left school and are not likely to have one.
This is a problem which we really must tackle. Our Government had a go at it.
360
The present Government are trying to do something. But it seems to me that there is a case here for special financial assistance. My right hon. Friend referred to the question of public enterprise, and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that he would not object to it in a desperate situation— though why he should want it only in a desperate situation, I do not know. We always seem to turn to it in those circumstances, as in the case of Rolls-Royce, for example. However, there does seem to be a case especially here for looking at that possibility, and I plead for the establishment of two institutions to that end.
First, I suggest that there should be a reconstruction corporation rather on the lines, though with extended powers, of the I.R.C. which has been thrown away in this country. I am sure that there is a case for doing something like that.
Second, I suggest a development bank which could provide special credit facilities and, perhaps, favourable interest rates for industry in Northern Ireland. This could be done if it were desired. I know that there are Irish banks, but I am asking for something in addition which, I believe, could help in the establishment of new industries and could help the liquidity of those which are in some difficulty at the moment.
The third proposal I make in this connection is that this is essentially an area in which the regional employment premium ought to be doubled, not abolished. If the North of Ireland were an independent State, it would devalue its currency and would alter the exchange rate. It cannot do that. In a far-fetched way, one can say that doubling the R.E.P. and giving a large wage subsidy in that way could be something like the equivalent of altering the exchange rate. I have put this to the Government before, and I put it again, for I believe that there is no solution here too far-fetched to be tried in an effort to reduce the dreadful searing level of unemployment.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) raised a serious point in his references to the difficulties of agriculture. Here again, I believe that there is in Northern Ireland a case for substantial protection for the small farmers who are suffering quite severely at the present time. There is a case for the

361
establishment of real marketing boards, boards with genuine marketing powers, and, for livestock farmers and dairy farmers, for the bulk purchasing of feedingstuffs. As I see the situation, it seems to me that they are too much in the hands of people on this side of the water, and they could use their combined power if they got together in the form of co-operatives much more ably than they have done hitherto. That is another proposal, therefore, which I advance.
The House will understand that I am hurrying along, since the time is rather late, and I come now to my final suggestion on this part of the problem. Many of us have now seen the central area of Belfast where most of the trouble occurs. I am sure that all those of us who have seen it acknowledge that it is an area which, on town planning and amenity grounds alone, should be swept out of existence. There is no reason why that area—probably a mile and a half each way could not be redeveloped. Indeed, I put it positively and say that it should be redeveloped, and the houses swept aside. Protestants and Catholics alike are living in equally bad conditions in this area. The contest in Ireland is not between the haves and have-nots: it is between those who have not and those who have very little more. Yet, somehow, they do not combine to fight their own economic and political battles.
I suggest—I have said it before—that the Belfast Corporation should be seriously pressed, and the funds allocated —there is a £75 million development scheme now—to demolish that area and to rebuild the houses elsewhere, turning the centre of Belfast where the trouble occurs into a park. I see no reason why that should not be done. In this country, if there were no politics and no difficulties about it, it would be an area ripe for development—indeed, over-ripe for development. I should like to see the Belfast Corporation and the Northern Ireland Government get on with it. Of course, there will be a lot of local politicians whose seats depend on it who will find good reasons why these things should not be done. But we are concerned with wider issues than that.
I leave the question of unemployment and the economy with the words that this House has a very serious responsibility to ensure that Northern Ireland does not
362
remain as far behind the rest of the country as it is now. It has lower wages, lower productivity, a lower output, and a lower standard of life than any of the rest of the parts of the United Kingdom. That is not something this House should tolerate for long.
I turn finally to the third issue of the constitution and the politics of Northern Ireland. In the end, everything comes back to politics there. On the question of the constitution I have always held the view—as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear this afternoon, he and I were absolutely agreed about this—that taking over the North was the last thing anyone should or would want to do. We adhere to that policy. I go further, and say that I want to see Stormont made more representative, probably larger in numbers than it is now. Especially now that it is taking over new functions like the local authority functions now accruing to the centre, there could well be more Members in Stormont. I should like to see its authority build up, but it will build up only on two conditions: first, that it is representative, and, second, that there is the prospect of changing the Government. One of the weaknesses of the Northern Ireland system is the single-Government system under which it has laboured for 50 years. Just think what it would be like after 50 years of Conservative Government in this country.
An Hon. Member: There will be.
Mr. Callaghan: We will wait and see.
This has had a serious impact on thinking in Northern Ireland. It is vital that non-sectarian politics should begin to be established in that country, so that it is possible to replace the existing Government. I am not commenting on them in particular, but no matter how indolent, how unsuccessful, how unpopular, how unrepresentative the existing Government are, they cannot be replaced. There is at present no opposition capable of fighting the seats in Stormont to form an alternative Government. That is why I say that I believe that it is essential for the life of Stormont that an opposition should be established and built up which is capable of taking the place of the existing Government.
I do not know whether the Minister who replies to the debate will spell out

363
the constitutional position, but at some stage, if not tonight, it needs to be spelled out. The Home Secretary has said something about it, but it needs him or the Prime Minister once again to spell out the meaning of the constitution. They can do it with far greater authority than I can now, but I will read the words of the constitution, because some confusion is I think deliberately being created over there about the rôle of Westminster and what degree of intervention there can be. I say that I think that it is being created deliberately, and I stick to that. Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, says:
"Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliament … of Northern Ireland, … or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kinedom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things in Ireland and every part thereof."
That, to me, is clear. The advice I had when I was Home Secretary was clear on this, and I dare say that the present Home Secretary's advice is clear too. There are some people in Northern Ireland who will be labouring under a great delusion if they believe that by removing the present Prime Minister and putting in his place someone else, who might then decide to call a General Election, and might even get a substantial verdict in his favour, he would be free to turn to Westminster and say, in the vernacular, "Hands off." That is not what Section 75 says. No more could we rid ourselves of the responsibilities laid upon us in Section 75—
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what that Section does is to preserve the legislative supremacy of this House, not the administrative supremacy of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, unless legislation to confirm it is passed?
Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to give comfort to anyone who is taking the view I have been referring to, so I want to agree with him at once. But, as my right hon. Friend said, we had prepared a Bill and we would have put it to the House for the decision of the House in order that we might assume the responsibilities that are laid upon us under
364
Section 75, but I think that what needs to be made clear, as I understand the Home Secretary made clear last August, is that, in certain circumstances, he would not hesitate to introduce such a Bill for the decision of the House that would enable us to assume our responsibilities—and we would be legally entitled to do so. Indeed, I go further. If there were to be a serious departure from what we have come to call the "standards of the United Kingdom" in Northern Ireland, we would not only be legally entitled to do so, but morally entitled to do so, and indeed bound to do so.
What we have to do here is not warn, because in some ways that jars on the people of Northern Ireland—I understand that, and I am not trying to do it in that spirit—but make clear certain things. I believe, indeed, that the majority of people there are already clear about them. If the United Kingdom as a whole, and Great Britain in particular, is to ensure their peace, as is being done through the presence of British troops; if we are to insure their financial viability, as we are doing at present—and immediately this debate is over an Order will he introduced for the provision of £50 million in terms of capital to Northern Ireland—and, more than these particular matters, if they claim, as they do and mean, to be part of the United Kingdom, then the other side of the penny is that the standards which exist here must apply there. This is a bargain and a compact between us, and both sides of the compact and the bargain must be carried out. I believe that it is essential to make clear to those, referred to by my right Friend, who may have some idea about U.D.I. in the North. It cannot happen for very good reasons, practical as well as legal.
We often quote Aneurin Bevan. He was a man gifted with summing up a situation in a phrase. Even those of us who opposed him on certain matters can well afford to remember some of the things he said. He once said. "If you ride a bicycle and stop pedalling you are going to fall off". This is essentially true of Northern Ireland. One cannot stop pedalling for a moment there. One must constantly keep moving in that situation.
What is needed in the present situation is a continuation of the political initiative

365
which I believe has begun. We should not hesitate to develop the kind of initiative the Home Secretary referred to, in which the Northern Ireland Minister of Commerce is visiting Dublin in order to discuss with the Eire Government matters of commerce that are vital to both countries. We should tell the people both of the North and the South that we support this kind of initiative—indeed, that we should like it to be carried further than it is at the moment.
I believe that the time is coming—it may come sooner than I thought three or four years ago—when discussions between the two Governments in Ireland will help the political situation in the North as well as the political situation in the South. I believe that it will also help towards a solution of the problems of the peoples in both those areas. We should indicate to the people of the North that we hope that they and their Government will take this initiative in order to improve relations between both parts of the country.
I do not think that it helps in the present situation to attack Mr. Lynch in the way which one hon. Member has done today. Let there be no doubt that the I.R.A. is as much Mr. Lynch's enemy as it is the Northern Government's enemy, and Mr. Lynch must handle his political situation in the way he thinks best, just as we are being asked to ensure that the Government of the North handle their political situation in the way that they think best.
I am not hope about the situation. I wish I were. I would like to see the resurgence of confidence that is asked for. But I fear that a serious situation is ahead of us. My right hon. Friend called the situation both vulnerable and urgent. I think that he was right. I am not at all complacent about the future. We are fortunate that this debate takes place in a lull, but I believe it is only a lull and that we shall move to conditions again when there will be great pressure on the Home Secretary to yield to panic and prejudice. I trust that he and the Prime Minister and the Government will resist it in the future as they have done in the past.
9.35 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): The right hon. Member for
366
Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that in recent months the debates in this House have been constructive and moderate. Anyone who has listened to the debate today and to the right hon. Gentleman's speech would agree that it has been helpful, constructive and, with very few exceptions, forward-looking. The right hon. Gentleman ended by expressing some doubts about the restoration of confidence. We all share his doubts. The very fact that this debate has been helpful and forward-looking is of value because, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said, what is needed more than anything else to restore the position of security in Northern Ireland is a restoration of confidence.
Many speeches have naturally and rightly referred to the security aspects in Northern Ireland. I want to concentrate mainly on these matters. I will speak of the nature of the challenge being made to the authority of the Northern Ireland Government and I will indicate the operational policy being followed by the security forces. The fact that I refer mainly to security matters and the maintenance of public order in no way diminishes the fact that this is only part of a much wider political objective. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said, security cannot be regarded in a vacuum; it is only part of a very much wider political objective.
Our overall purpose is to ensure that where real grievances exist they should be dispelled. It is for this reason that we support the institutional changes being made to bring about greater fairness between one citizen and another in Northern Ireland. We must help to provide jobs not only because of the long-standing unemployment situation in Northern Ireland, which is a cause for concern in itself, but because the recent deterioration in the economic position is one of the most grievous problems which the people will have to face in the immediate future and in the years ahead.
Our purpose is to ensure that the programme of social reform is carried through vigorously and effectively. It is these social policies which will help the people of Northern Ireland forward to a better standard of life. The progress which has been made in recent months in

367
implementing these has already removed some of the sense of grievance which existed not so long ago. Already it is reducing to some degree the tension between the communities. It is this, the prospect of a better standard of life, which is being put at risk by the extremists who, far from wishing to see any improvement in relations, are seeking to exacerbate relations and to promote strife, hatred and reprisals.
The impression I have is that the nature of the problem facing the security forces has gradually been changing in recent months. There has been a noticeable improvement in that there is a lessening of violence between the two communities. There is an increase in the number of people who want to see an end to sectarian strife. More and more people are heartily sick of the violence which disgraces their cities and towns.
Good men and good women are profoundly shocked by the events of the past few months, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said. Where riots have occurred in recent months, one has had the feeling that they have been the result of a deliberate attempt by a very small minority of people to stir up trouble. They have been quite different in character from the spontaneous outbursts of feeling which took place a year or so ago. There was a spontaneity about them which characterised them. Whether they arose from fear, or distrust, or anger, they were characterised by spontaneity which was just not visible in the riots which have taken place in recent months.
That is an improvement, but the other change in recent months is far more sinister. It is the increased use of firearms. It is the stepping-up of a campaign of murder and violence and intimidation. Again the campaign is being carried out by a relatively small number of men and, in so far as it has a purpose, in many ways it is simply, as the Leader of the Opposition said, violence for the sake of violence, and, in so far as there is a political purpose, the immediate purpose is to try, by murder and by violence and by stirring up riots, to force the British authorities to take steadily increasing repressive measures. They hope that the measures which will be taken by the security forces will be indiscriminate.
368
They hope that those measures will alienate the ordinary people of good will and first build up a reaction against the Army and ultimately recreate the sectarian strife which almost tore Northern Ireland into two last year.
In these circumstances, the duty of the security forces and the civil police is to root out this terrorism. This duty is being pursued with the utmost vigour. Our success in doing this will depend on our ability to isolate the gangsters and to eliminate the hard core of terrorists without at the same time drawing the Army into conflict with a large section of the community.
The success of this policy of isolating the gangsters and bringing the trouble makers to justice depends very largely on the effectiveness of our intelligence, and as this is a matter which has been frequently raised in debate, I should like to say a word about the intelligence available to the security forces.
Mr. McMaster: Are these gangsters to whom my hon. Friend is referring the I.R.A., to whom my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred at the opening of the debate?
Lord Balniel: They are quite simply gangsters, murderers.
Mr. McMaster: Republicans.
Lord Balniel: The House will understand that they are gangsters wherever they come from. The House will also understand that it would not be in our interests if I were to make a detailed statement about the work and the structure of our intelligence service in Northern Ireland.
But I emphasise that it has been appreciated on both sides of the water for a long time that there is a vital need in present conditions, particularly in Belfast, for an efficient intelligence system, and practical steps to increase efficiency are being introduced as fast as possible. There is no simple formula for achieving instant success in intelligence, but I assure the House that men with considerable experience in this work have examined what needs to be done, and their advice has been taken by both ourselves and the Northern Ireland authorities.
For example, there are now well-established measures to achieve better

369
co-ordination between the military and the police. We have appointed specialist officers and warrant officers throughout the Province whose purpose, among other things, is to achieve continuity when battalions change over and whose duty is to liaise between the military and the security forces. For obvious reasons, I do not want to go into more detail about the structure of our intelligence, but I do not want in any way to give any impression of complacency or of seeking to cover up any inefficiency: that is very far from the case.
However, there is one aspect of intelligence gathering and assessment in the Northern Ireland situation which I should mention. It is extremely difficult and often impossible to make an accurate assessment of what sort of violence will be perpetrated at a certain time in a certain area, even when we have hard evidence. The reason for this is the unpredictability of the criminals with whom we are having to deal. Their organisation is loose, and they often act on impulse. They act frequently against targets of opportunity which present themselves.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary Special Branch has been greatly strengthened over the last year. Advice from experts has been sought and has been readily given. I feel that this force should be allowed to get on with its incredibly difficult and dangerous task with all the support which we can give it.
One has heard a good deal in this debate, and on other occasions, about the wall of silence. Of course there is not complete confidence everywhere in the Province. It will, sadly, take a good deal of time, I suspect, to restore confidence. Until this is done, there will always be people who will suppress evidence out of motives of fear. Evil men who are utterly ruthless and perfectly willing to perpetrate murder are intimidating a small proportion of the population. In urban guerrilla activities and warfare this has always been the case, but I am glad to be able to confirm what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, that information is beginning to flow in more readily than it has in the past.
I have said that the Army is pursuing its task of rooting out terrorism with
370
the utmost vigour. Complaints have, however, been made that the R.U.C. and the Army are not effective enough in the pursuit of their security tasks. This is not the view of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, who told the Stormont Parliament on 30th March that, after discussion with the G.O.C. Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable, and after learning of the instructions which had been given to the subordinate commanders, he was absolutely satisfied with their desire to get to grips with the problem. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland stated his conviction that nothing was inhibiting them from taking any action, however firm, which in their professional judgment would contribute to the ultimate defeat of terrorism. This communiqué was issued after the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland had seen the Prime Minister last week, and he expressed his satisfaction with the attitude of the security forces.
I will give an indication of the scale of the Army's undertaking. This year alone the Army has made over 420 arrests, and, as a result, over 230 people have been sentenced. Nearly 140 of them have been sentenced for riotous behaviour, and a further 60 are awaiting trial.
Arms searches have been extremely effective. I missed his speech, but I was informed that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) suggested that searches were being undertaken only in Catholic areas. This is not true. Searches are undertaken wherever evidence leads one to believe that arms may be stored. An indication of the success of arms searches may be seen in the fact that in the first three months of this year 77 firearms, 24,000 rounds of ammunition, several hundreds of pounds of explosives and great quantities of detonators, fuses, grenades and petrol bombs have been found. I confirm, for instance, the information given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South that this weekend—and this is indicative of the improved information which is available to us—19 occupied houses and 39 unoccupied properties, 19 areas and 9,300 vehicles were searched. Thirty firearms and 1,600 rounds of ammunition were found and 20 arrests were made. This scale of operations is some answer to those who accept the criticism of the security forces that they are inactive.

371
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the so-called "no go" areas. I can only repeat the assurance which has been given repeatedly that there are absolutely no areas where the security forces do not go at their will, on foot or in vehicles, for as long as they wish, by day or by night. Of course, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) mentioned, there are in certain areas, particularly in parts of Belfast, extreme difficulties in keeping order. That is because there is only limited co-operation from the local residents. If we follow the right policies and win the co-operation of the local residents, and if gradually they come to look on the police as being their natural protectors, difficulties of restoring order in these areas will be overcome.
I should like to say a few words about the operational policy under which the Army is operating. It is based on a policy of minimum force. I do not think that this is as widely understood as it should be. It should be widely understood because it is the basis on which the Army operates and the basis of its tactics. It is the basis on which it deals with all forms of violence, from the fairly innocuous violence of housewives banging on dustbin lids to violence of the nature of gunmen with automatic weapons. Sometimes it is little children yelling obscenities, even at the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East telling him to go home. Sometimes it is young children throwing stones. Often it is that hideous mixture in riots of stones, petrol bombs and bullets.
"Minimum force" does not mean "inadequate force". For instance, if a gunman is firing or is about to fire, he cannot expect a warning. No shots are fired overhead. The forces will shoot that man to kill, and it is impossible to be tougher than that. The point about minimum force is that it is the level of force needed to restore order, and no more. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said in his remarkable speech, a very fine balance must be found by the highly professional Army serving in Northern Ireland between restraint and escalation. It requires great skill and steadiness by the men who have to face this situation.
372
If there is indiscriminate retaliation by security forces, we risk turning peaceable people, people of good will, towards sympathy for the extremists. If large numbers of people suffer because of the misdeeds of a few murderers and gangsters, bitterness and frustration will be increased in Northern Ireland. We believe—and this is the view of those who serve there—that this is the right policy for restoring order in Northern Ireland.
I have spoken largely about the security aspects, because these have been raised so frequently in the debate and they are my own departmental responsibility. I come back to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech. The restoration of public order is only part of a much wider political objective. On taking office, the Prime Minister, Mr. Faulkner, said that the programme for progress which has been such a notable feature of the past 18 months or so will be energetically continued. When he announced his Cabinet he said that he had sought a broadly-based Cabinet and that every member of it endorsed the principles of the policy that he had outlined on taking office.
I am sure that the House will accept that the social progress which has been made in Northern Ireland in the last 18 months by any standards is a remarkable performance. Legislation has been passed creating a full franchise, one man, one vote, at local government elections. The full franchise is available to people at the age of 18. When the next local government elections take place in 1972, they will be held on a radically reformed local government structure. The Minister of Development has taken over responsibility for housing. The Housing Executive Act is already on the Statute Book, creating a housing authority which is responsible for the allocation of houses. A Parliamentary Commissioner has been empowered to investigate complaints, and a Commissioner for Complaints has been appointed.
Clearly, in Northern Ireland there are no easy solutions. No amount of improvement in Army tactics, weaponry and expertise and no improvement in troop levels will solve the basic problems. What the Army can do is, by backing up the civil power and the

373
R.U.C., to subdue violence and to provide a desperately needed breathing space so that one citizen in Northern Ireland can learn to live at peace with another citizen.
As in all such situations, the main cause of disaffection is fear. Let me therefore repeat the pledges given by the United Kingdom Government. The reform programme will proceed. The Border is not an issue and will not disappear or be changed unless with the consent of the people and Parliament of Northern Ireland. The Army will remain in Northern Ireland as long as it is needed, and it can be relied on entirely to maintain the rule of law absolutely impartially.
To take up a point made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, during the coming days it would be of great value to have the fullest co-operation of those who will be organising the parades and marches. The security forces have to bear a very heavy burden, and they are entitled to expect the utmost help and co-operation. It would contribute significantly to a reduction of tension if the provocative elements of
374
some of these marches could be avoided. I hope that those in Northern Ireland who rightly call on us to do our utmost to preserve order will themselves be prepared to assist the forces in this way.
Mr. Callaghan: That is not quite what I asked. I asked whether the Government would put the particular point to the Security Committee in Northern Ireland.
Lord Balniel: If the Government felt that a certain march should be banned—[HON. MEMBERS: "All or none."]—the recommendation would be put to the Security Committee. It is not necessarily the view that the banning of all marches would contribute to the reduction of tension. If that were the view of the military, it would be put to the Security Committee and I am sure would be considered by the Stormont Government.
Mr. Walter Clegg (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE (BORROWING POWERS)
9.59 p.m.
The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I beg to move,
That the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Order. 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.
This Order would raise the limit of the Post Office's debt from £2,300 million to £2,800 million, as provided for in Section 36 of the Post Office Act, 1969. The further debt may be incurred in three ways. First, the Post Office may borrow sterling for capital purposes from the Minister out of the National Loans Fund. Second, it may borrow sterling temporarily from the Minister or from other sources with the Minister's approval. Third, it may borrow foreign currency temporarily or for capital purposes from a source specified by the Minister.
Almost all the borrowing will in fact be from the National Loans Fund. Ever since 1961 the Post Office has been treated, in certain financial respects, as if it were a nationalised industry, and its borrowing between 1961 and 1969, when it became a public authority, was regulated by a series of borrowing powers Acts and Orders. Section 36 of the Post Office Act, 1969, was in effect a borrowing powers enactment, and the commencing capital debt of the Corporation, £1,786 million, was the amount outstanding from previous borrowings.
In the first six months of the Corporation's existence, as is recorded in the Report and Accounts which I laid before the House on 26th November, 1970, the Post Office borrowed £135 million from the National Loans Fund. During the financial year 1970–71, it borrowed a further £253 million, again from the National Loans Fund. In addition, it borrowed £8 million abroad, making its total long-term debt £2,182 million at 31st March this year.
In other circumstances, despite the very high and rising level of investment by the Post Office, I should not have had to lay an Order before the House for some months, but the strike has, on the one hand, deprived the Post Office of a substantial amount of postal income,
376
and, on the other, caused a serious disruption in the collection of telecommunications revenue.
It was for these reasons that, with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I recently authorised the Post Office to increase its overdraft at the Bank of England to a maximum of £100 million. It is this extra amount of temporary borrowing which has brought the Post Office close to its ceiling and has made this Order necessary. Expenditure has not been disrupted over these recent weeks in the same way as income, and, without this Order, the Post Office would be in danger of exceeding its statutory limit, because its cash flow is subject to large and unpredictable fluctuations from day to day.
When Section 36 of the Post Office Act was discussed in Committee the then Postmaster-General, the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) said:
"We have it in mind that Parliament will be able to check the Post Office borrowing in 1971, when it will be asked to approve a new extension of powers, and that a new Bill will he required in 1973."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 27th February, 1969; c. 913.]
So, although this Order has been advanced as a result of the strike by a few months, we are still generally in line with the right hon. Gentleman's prediction. The timetable which he forecast has not proved far wrong.
Capital spending since the Post Office became a public authority has continued at much the same level as was envisaged in 1969. The programme of postal mechanisation and the replacement of postal buildings has gone somewhat more slowly than was then forecast in the letter sorting field, but it is on schedule in parcel mechanisation.
On the telecommunications side, the business has been faced with a considerably higher level of demand for its services than was foreseen. The level of most of the spending is determined by the output of the telecommunications manufacturing industry. The industry has not been able to expand its output more than was envisaged in 1969. The amount of borrowing depends not only on the level of expenditure but also on the proportion of capital requirements

377
which can be financed from internal resources, that is to say from profits and depreciation allowances.
On revenue account, the Post Office, in common with industry generally, has been faced with steep rises in costs during the last 18 months, particularly in labour costs. On the telecommunications side these increases have been partly absorbed by increases in productivity and partly offset by an increase in tariffs although in the short term the cash flow has been seriously diminished by reason of the postal strike, among other things, through delays in collecting money owing on telephone bills. On the posts side a revenue loss of over £40 million was expected in any case during 1970–71. The effects of the strike have increased this deficit to something in the neighbourhood of £70 million. Accordingly, while spending has remained at much the same level as was envisaged in 1969 borrowing has increased.
The amount for which I am asking for approval in this Order is £500 million. During the last financial year the Post Office spent £450 million on capital investment. Its spending is increasing rapidly to keep pace with demand. Supported by self—financing at the sort of level which has prevailed in the recent past the extra £500 million should suffice as originally planned for the next two financial years. The time when a new Borrowing Powers Act will be needed will depend to some extent on factors which cannot be forecast precisely, such as future trading conditions, the results of the Committee of Settlement which started its proceedings today, and other reviews which I have initiated.
I shall examine very carefully the investment programmes which the Post Office submits to me annually to establish that they are justified and productive. I do not expect these factors to affect the timing of the Bill more than marginally so that the next time we shall be discussing Post Office borrowing is likely to be in 1973 which was the date originally forecast at the time of the passing of the Post Office Act 1969.
This further borrowing will be needed for investment in the expansion and modernisation of the Post Office businesses in the next two financial years. The
378
future of the postal business will depend to some extent on the findings of the Committee of Settlement, so that at present I do not feel that it would be to anyone's advantage to speculate on the immediate financial prospects of the business. The most pressing Post Office need for finance is for the expansion of the telecommunications network in response to the demand for its services.
It is to this that the lion's share of the borrowing will be devoted. Demand for the telephone service is now running at a rate of more than one million connections a year and the system is growing by more than 8·5 per cent. a year. The telex network is growing by 17 per cent. a year and perhaps the most startling figure of all, the rate of growth in the number of Datel terminals increased by nearly 150 per cent. in the last year. Inland telephone traffic is forecast to increase by 11 per cent. a year, Continental traffic by 18 per cent. a year and inter—Continental traffic by 25 per cent. a year, so that we are at a period of rapid growth in telecommunications.
I am sure that there is agreement on all sides of the House that the Post Office should do all it can to meet this demand for its services. It is to keep pace with this demand that the telecommunications business is investing more than £500 million a year. The House will recall that, in the recent review of investment in nationalised industries, the investment programme of the Post Office was confirmed at its full level.
The need for and urgency of this investment will be widely acknowledged, and it is mainly for this purpose that the extra borrowing will be needed. Naturally, I am anxious to keep the cost to public funds to a minimum. A small portion of investment is undertaken abroad, particularly in respect of United Kingdom participation in international telecommunications satellite projects, and for this I have authorised the Post Office to borrow abroad a modest sum of £8 million. At present, more than half the investment is financed from profit and from depreciation allowances, and I would not be prepared to sanction investment plans which were not self—financed at least to this extent.
Expenditure on telecommunications is running at its present high level because of the pressure of demand. Supply is

379
largely limited by the output of the telecommunications manufacturing industry, which has had difficulty in the past in meeting the Post Office's requirements. The result has been shortages on many occasions, causing long queues of people waiting for telephone services and congestion in the telephone network, particularly the trunk system. The Post Office tells me that a number of the difficulties which it and the manufacturers have been wrestling with for some time are being overcome, although it is too early yet to say that all the problems are past. Meanwhile, technological change proceeds quickly.
At present, three sorts of switching equipment are being installed in the network—the electro-mechanical strowger, the crossbar system which uses an intermediate technology, and the new electronic system. Part of the advantage of the later systems is that they give better service and require less maintenance because no longer are moving parts and electrical contacts exposed to the open air and the hazard of dust. The other great advantage of the newer systems is that they incorporate electronic control mechanisms which allow a much greater degree of flexibility and economy in the use of circuits by enabling individual components to perform a variety of functions as the need arises.
As a number of hon. Members will know, this transitional phase in the technology of the Post Office has caused the Post Office and the manufacturers particular problems, and a number of those problems remain to be solved. For the future, the development of even more advanced systems can be foreseen and this, together with developments in the technology of long-distance circuits and the increasing use of the telecommunications system for data transmission, gives the Post Office great challenges for the future.
But these are matters for the longer term. The House will be concerned with the large-scale use of resources which is involved on the telecommunications side of the Post Office. My function is the one given to me in Section 11 (8) of the Post Office Act, 1969—of approving the general programme of the Post Office's capital development, and the purpose of
380
this Order is the immediate one of meeting the Post Office's clear need for further investment to expand its business in the face of demand in accordance with plans which have already been approved, and it is for that reason that I commend the Order to the House.
10.14 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Richard: I congratulate the Minister on preserving intact the capital expenditure programme and the investment programme of the Post Office against the depredations of his colleagues on the Treasury Bench. It is encouraging to note that in this respect, at any rate, the Government have shown wisdom and perception in their approach to the problems of a public industry. I trust that that wisdom will continue.
We on this side would not dream of opposing the Order, but there are one or two questions, I hope not over-technical, that I want to ask, particularly in respect of Sections 36, 35 and 33 of the Post Office Act; and one or two other points that I want to make.
From a mere reading of the Act, I understand that the limit to which the Post Office is entitled to borrow, as laid down by Section 36, was £2,300 million
"… or such greater sum, not exceeding £2,800 million, as the Minister may from time to time by order specify."
I understand that this is the first Order that has been made under that Section, so that in one jump, so to speak, the Post Office borrowing is increased by this Order to the total increase authorised in the Section. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he is doing this in one jump? He will know that since the Post Office Act established the Post Office as a nationalised industry rather than a Government Department, the degree of scrutiny of the affairs of the Post Office by the House and by the public is very much less. I am not complaining about this, but pointing out that it is one of the inevitable results of conversion to a nationalised industry in this form. The one way in which the House and the country can scrutinise the Post Office borrowing powers, their extent and the purpose for which the borrowing is done is on this type of Order.
The furthest I got with my arithmetic while the figures were being given to us is that the total borrowing facilities which the Post Office may require are now

381
some £20 million less than the £2,300 million which is the present total authorised sum. If the Order goes through as it stands tonight, as it undoubtedly will, this will be the last opportunity the House of Commons will have of looking at the Post Office borrowing powers and at the whole capital expenditure programmes until we get a borrowing powers Measure in, perhaps, 1973. Whether or not this is a satisfactory procedure from the Minister's point of view—and I can see the advantage there is from that point of view in not being accountable or over-regularly accountable to the House in this respect—we on this side would have felt happier had the Order not sought the whole £500 million at one jump. Going from £2,300 million to £2,500 million, with perhaps another Order in this form laid at a later date, would have been more satisfactory.
Section 36 gives the Post Office the right to borrow the sums which it is authorised to borrow under Section 35. This is, even for a lawyer, a tortuous exercise, but occasionally it throws up one or two questions. Under Section 35 the borrowing which the Post Office is entitled to effect consists of four different portions. First, it can
"… borrow temporarily, by way of overdraft or otherwise, either from the Minister "—
Or, with his consent from anyone else
"such sums … as it may require for meeting its obligations and performing its functions."
I believe that the Minister said tonight, but perhaps he will confirm it, that the financial effects of the strike, in so far as they are at all relevant to the Order, relate purely to the temporary borrowing facilities under subsection (1) of Section 35. In other words, there has been what the right lion. Gentleman called a reduction in the cash flow; a temporary liquidity problem caused by the fact that people have not been paying their telephone bills as quickly as they normally do. If that is the case, one would expect in the normal course of events that the temporary facility would rapidly become unnecessary as honest citizens decided that they should pay for the privilege of having used the telephone in the last three or four months.
The second chunk of borrowing under Section 35 is for provision of working capital and for what can broadly be
382
called, I suppose, the capital investment account. There is, however, one interesting provision, which is that it also includes any sums borrowed in order to repay the debt which the Post Office took over under Section 33 when it was set up. I do not know whether in fact any payments have been made to repay the £1,748 million which the Post Office acquired when it became a nationalised industry. I doubt it very much. I should be grateful for the Minister's confirmation of that.
Section 36(4) provides, however, that
"References in this Section to borrowing by the Post Office do not include borrowing by it from a body corporate which is its subsidiary."
Is there any body corporate which is the Post Office's subsidiary from which it has borrowed any money, which might have had an effect upon the total borrowing limits had it been borrowing from something which was not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Post Office? Either way, if this increase is to finance long-term capital programmes, that is one thing; if, on the other hand, it is merely to get over a short-term liquidity or cash flow problem, that is a different one.
I turn now to the capital programme. On 19th January of last year, my right hon. Friend the then Postmaster-General in answer to the hon. Gentleman who was then the Member for Acton but is now the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker), gave the figures for the capital programme of the Post Office, and he put investment in this way, as expenditure on fixed assets, for posts and Giro, from £34·5 million for 1969–70, to £41·2 million for 1971–72; on telecommunications, from £362·4 million in 1969–70 to £448·9 million for 1971–72; and NDPS from £6·2 million for 1969–70 to £7·6 million for 1971–72. All those figures were at March, 1969, prices.
On 2nd November last year the right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) that the cuts which were announced in Cmnd. 4515 last year would not affect the capital expenditure programme of the Post Office. May we, therefore, take it that the figures which the Minister has been working on, and the figures which he has quoted tonight as the capital expenditure and investment figures of the Post Office, are in fact those

383
which were set out in HANSARD on 19th January, 1970, at column 19, merely being updated because, obviously, of increased prices between 1969–70 and 1971–72. If that is so, and I assume that it is, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, included in his figure, is a figure of £41·2 million at March, 1969, prices which includes the additional investment on the Giro services? If the Minister follows the point, if one goes back to the figures given in January, 1970, which apparently form the basis of the figures which he has given tonight, they include a provision for additional capital investment on the Giro services. Will the Minister confirm tonight that that additional investment is to take place on the Giro services?
Second, it includes additional expenditure on NDPS. Can the Minister again confirm that the figures he has given tonight in fact include that additional expenditure?
Third, it includes a massive increase in the capital investment programme for telecommunications. If the Minister is asking the House to give him the right to lend the Post Office up to another £500 million, particularly so that the telecommunications side of the Post Office's investment can be increased—in the not too distant future—any proposals for hiving off any part of the telecommunications service will get short shrift from this side of the House.
Finally, I have two points of a rather more general nature. The Order will authorise the Post Office to borrow up to an additional £500 million. It is important that at some time in the nottoo-distant future the Minister should turn his mind to the question of who it is that will do the borrowing. It is now five months since the right hon. Gentleman summarily dismissed Lord Hall, with the consequential effects that that dismissal clearly had upon morale within the Post Office. I know that the Minister takes the view that he was justified in dismissing Lord Hall. He will agree, however, that the effects of the dismissal upon the moral and efficiency of the Post Office are still being felt. The Post Office now is also trying to recover from a long and bitter strike which, as the Minister knows full well, we on this side
384
believe that he personally did little to try to settle.
If confidence is to be re-established, particularly on the part of the workers in the industry, it is essential that a new Chairman be appointed soon and that a fresh start be made. I do not want to press the Minister too much tonight, particularly as, judging from the Press reports of the last day or two, it seems that to talk to a Conservative Minister about appointing a new Chairman to the board of a nationalised industry is almost an invitation to raid the Opposition Front Bench. I would not want to deplete our ranks to a greater extent than has been done already.
It is high time that a new appointment was made and that the Post Office got back to normal. I hope that the Minister will be able to make an announcement on this fairly soon.
I have said something about the question of public accountability in relation to the timing and the amount of the Order. The Post Office is now much less accountable than it ever used to be. On the whole, this is probably a good thing. It is particularly true that it is less accountable now in terms of investment decisions. Some massive decisions will have to be taken fairly soon, particularly in relation to investment in the telecommunications sector. The Minister referred to three technical possibilities. Although I do not profess to understand exactly what is involved in all the technical possibilities, I am given to understand that a good deal of money will depend upon his getting the decisions right.
Therefore, it is critical that greater public discussion of these matters takes place, particularly on the technical side, before these decisions are taken by the Post Office. I know that the Minister cannot devise on an Order like this a method of having this type of public discussion. However, he will agree that such a discussion can no longer take place on the question of the Post Office Economic Development Council. The House does not now discuss this subject to the same extent as it used to. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries will be deeply involved in discussing other nationalised industries before it gets round to the Post Office.
It would be helpful if the Minister could devise, in one form or another, a

385
system by which public discussion of these very difficult and expensive decisions could take place. Subject to those discussions, we on this side welcome the Order. I suspect that, had the election gone the other way on 18th June last, we would almost certainly have been introducing something like it.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. The Order gives the House a useful opportunity to look at the developing financial strategy of the Post Office against the background of the Bill which will be presented to the House in 1973.
In commenting on the Order, I wish to draw attention to what the Minister had to say on 23rd July last year. Hon. Members will recall that on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman announced increases in postage rates, increases which constituted the largest single rise in postage charges in the history of the Post Office. Those rates became operative in January this year. The Minister said—this is col. 761 of HANSARD for that date—that the increases which he then announced should be sufficient for the five-year target period.
In the light of the present Order, the financial estimates which the Post Office has made, and the difficulties to which the Minister has referred to, does he still hold the view which he expressed last year, that the financial targets for the five-year period remain the same and will be sufficient? The right hon. Gentleman said also on that occasion that the accumulated short-fall in relation to the quinquennial target period would be £88 million by the end of 1970. What is the estimated short-fall in relation to the target period now?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) said, there have been a number of serious developments in Post Office finances since the Minister's announcement in July last year. There has been the advent of decimalisation, estimated to cost £10 million. The acting chairman of the Post Office Corporation has said that the industrial dispute had created a situation in which the Post Office had lost £27 million of revenue. The House is entitled to know what will be the conse-
386
quential effect of these losses on Post Office finances overall and its targets for the future.
One of the Minister's most illuminating statements during the recent unfortunate industrial dispute came when he suggested that one of the consequences of meeting the claim advanced by the Post Office staff was the prospect of a nine-penny post. The Minister and the Government encouraged the Post Office to resist what I thought was the legitimate claim of the staff for improved salaries and wages, thereby involving the Post Office Corporation in a loss of £27 million. Will that bring nearer the advent of the ninepenny post to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Can he assure the House that he will not during the next twelve months announce a further increase in postage rates as a result of the difficulties which the Government have encouraged the Post Office Corporation to create in the way I have described?
In the halcyon days of the Labour Government, the hon. Member for How-den (Mr. Bryan), in his usual humourless way, used to criticise the financial forecasting of the Post Office. I hope that the Minister will be able to justify the forecasting of Post Office finances to which he has referred this evening. I accept his point that financial forecasting will have to await the outcome of the deliberations of the committee of settlement which is examining the recent industrial dispute in the Post Office. But the nation needs to be assured that he will not introduce another increase in postage rates in the months ahead.
After the trauma of one of the longest national industrial disputes of all time, which was seemingly deliberately provoked by a Government determined to make an example of those who serve the community, there are a number of points that merit examination. In his lucid exposition of the Order, the Minister referred to the way in which the revenue was raised to finance the Post Office. He spoke of the element of self-financing. Last April it was said that 52 per cent. of the Post Office's capital was raised by self-financing. The Minister said tonight that the level of self-financing would be of the order of that which had existed in recent times. Is he indicating that it

387
is envisaged that 52 per cent. of self-financing will continue in the sources of revenue available to the Corporation?
All the Corporation's estimates on financing depend on increased productivity of 1½ per cent. in the Post Office. One of the important elements for that envisaged increase, and continuing increase, is to a large extent the good will and co-operation that the Corporation can engender amongst its staff. I sometimes feel, certainly against the background of the recent dispute, that there is a failure by the Post Office to comprehend the discontent of the staff. After the recent industrial dispute everyone felt that the opportunity should be grasped to improve relationships between the staff and the Corporation. There were many niggling points which the Post Office, in its wisdom, felt it should bring up after the dispute. I could quote a host of different instances to highlight points which came to the surface after the dispute ended, and which have to some extent militated against the resumption of normal relationships between the Post Office and its staff. I could quote the actions of the head postmaster at Birmingham, who, after the overwhelming majority of his staff had resumed normal working, chose to send a letter to those who did not join in the dispute. Hon. Members on both sides would probably term those people industrial blacklegs. After the dispute was over he wrote to them as follows:
"Your support for the Post Office during the strike will not under any circumstances be held against you in the course of your career.
Should you have any problems on which you require advice, please feel free to consult me personally. Thank you very much for your loyalty during the past difficult weeks. I understand your motives. A record will be maintained of your action in your personal papers and your loyalty will never be to your detriment in the course of your Post Office career".
This is a head postmaster writing to an infinitesimal number of industrial "blacklegs". Yes, these are the words of a responsible official of the Post Office. The same gentleman, after the dispute had come to an end because of the reasonableness of both sides in the final stages of the negotiation, thought fit to close the gates of the sorting office and to deny access to the returning postal workers from nine o'clock on the morning of resumption of work to
388
12.20 p.m. the same day. When the postal workers wished to return to work, he kept them locked out for three hours twenty minutes to prove that he did not accept the nationally agreed hour for resumption of nine a.m.
These are only some of the points that arose. Probably the point which galls Post Office workers generally about the last dispute was the decision of the Post Office to withhold the entitlement to three days annual leave to those who were involved in the dispute. The only people who had that three days withheld were those who had not enjoyed the three days leave before the dispute started. If one is seeking to restore good relationships between the two sides in the Post Office, these decisions should not have been made and these actions should not be endorsed. I hope that the Minister will use the period ahead to take positive action to demonstrate to the Post Office staff that he now recognises some of the justification for their discontent.
10.43 p.m.
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) will not expect me to endorse his condemnation of those very loyal members of the Post Office service who stayed on to pay out the old age pensioners. Not all of them did. The service was kept going in many areas, but not in every area.
Mr. Charles R. Morris Mr. Charles R. Morris rose—
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I shall not give way. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's view. He is entitled to his view; I am equally entitled to mine.
Mr. Richard: The right hon. Lady is being less than charitable to the union. She will know—or if she does not I am sure that her right hon. Friend will be only too pleased to confirm—that large numbers of the Union of Post Office members went in voluntarily without pay from the Post Office to pay the pensions.
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I did not deny that. I gave credit to those who did. But there were areas where workers did not do so and there was very grave hardship to old age pensioners as a result. I am entitled to

389
record that fact while saluting the many members who went in so that hardship should not result to old age pensioners.
What constituents are asking me now is when we shall get back to a normal Post Office service. The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) made great play with the increase in postal charges. He seems to have forgotten that not only were those increases agreed by his Government but the stamps had been printed. However, that was not revealed to the electorate until after the election. It fell to my right hon. Friend to bring in those increases and, to his credit, he delayed doing so as long as was practicable. But nobody likes them.
But what concerns us is that, despite the fact that the postal strike has been over for some weeks, the service has not yet returned to normal. Five of the letters which I received as first-class mail this morning were posted before noon on Friday only 12 miles away in my constituency. This sort of thing is happening with first-class mail day after day.
I am one of those who, like, I am sure dozens of hon. Members, received demand notices for electricity and gas bills posted after the strike, although the bills were rushed out four days before the strike started in order, as it was thought, that we might receive them and be able to pay them before the strike started. Those of us more experienced in these matters do not get frightened to death by final demand notices and realise what has happened, but great anxiety has been caused to constituents who have never been in debt in their lives and who have suddenly had final demand notices, although both the gas and electricity boards have gone out of their way, through public relations and so on, to make it clear that this misfortune was not of their making and that they would not dream of proceeding against any of the old people affected. But harassment has been caused by delay in delivery even before the strike started and thereafter by the backlog still being cleared while the new mail goes forward.
I am especially interested in my right hon. Friend's telecommunications programme. In my constituency is one of the most important manufacturers of the equipment. There is always a division of opinion: Ministers say that the Post
390
Office cannot meet demand because of the manufacturers; the manufacturers complain that often they cannot get sufficiently long-term contracts to merit increasing capacity to meet the demand, that there is no guarantee from the Government of the day of forthcoming orders within a given period to justify increasing capacity.
I come to a more personal aspect of the supply of telephones. Over the years, there has been a substantial and rapid housing development in my constituency with two vast estates, and for years there has been a queue for telephones. I confess that over the last 12 or 15 months, under both the previous Government and this, there has been an acceleration in supply. But what worries me is the embarrassment and invasion of privacy which comes from a grossly disproportionate number of new telephones installed on shared lines.
Over the last two years, the great majority of telephones provided in my constituency, under both Governments, seem to have been on shared lines. I have had complaints from a social worker, an insurance agent, a teacher, a stockbroker and a probation officer, all people who may well be dealing with highly personal and confidential matters on the telephone with clients, patients, schoolchildren, and so on.
I have known a schoolteacher caused the greatest possible embarrassment by discussing a child, as she thought, privately, with a parent, and later being attacked, harangued and nearly slandered by the mother, who said that she must have disclosed the information; a gossip had enjoyed herself listening on the tied line, and then gossiped about the daughter. The same thing happened to the stockbroker and the insurance agent. These are only a few of the cases in which they could give me chapter and verse.
I appreciate the difficulty, that it is better to have a telephone than none at all, but I should like some idea of what proportion of the new telephones are shared lines. There is no protection of privacy on these lines. On Friday, I received a message to ring a constituent, at his office if before 5.30 and at his home if after 6.30. I rang for 45 minutes—22 times. When I finally got

391
him I said that he could not have been so anxious for me to ring, because he had been on the telephone for 45 minutes. He said that he had not, that he and his wife had been watching television, and had left the phone free because they knew that I would ring. But it was a shared line, he said, his next door neighbour's daughter had just got engaged and she was probably ringing her boy friend.
That did not matter very much, except that they were anxious that I should contact them, they did not have the use of a telephone, and they might have thought that I was uninterested and did not try to ring them. What is important is that, if I had rung them and the young lady had tried to ring her boyfriend in the middle of our conversation, she might have been interested to hear my constituents pouring out their hearts over the problem which they wished me to take up for them, which they regarded as a matter of considerable confidence and which, naturally, I would treat in the same confidence. It is important to give more people exclusive lines as soon as possible, and that the Minister's figures should be split between exclusive and shared lines.
There is one other small point, on which I should like the understanding of whoever allocates the numbers for the telephones. This may seem a very small matter to my hon. Friend, but it is very aggravating to possibly 120 telephone subscribers in my constituency.
There are three telephone exchanges: Imperial, code 467, Foots Cray, code 300, and the old-fashioned Orpington exchange which covers the vast St. Paul's Cray Estate which is obtained by dialling 66 and then five digits. That estate is so near to Foots Cray that people think that it is on the Foots Cray exchange and automatically dial 300 without 01. Alternatively, if they wish to ring an Orpington number they forget they have first to dial 66, and only dial the five digits.
I know of two old age pensioners who have been got out of bed on many occasions in the early hours of the morning to answer the telephone to people who are ringing up a doctor on the Foots Cray exchange whose number begins 300–25 and two more digits. If the 100 or so
392
people on the Orpington exchange with numbers beginning with 300 could be switched to 301 or 302 they would not be worried by agitated people ringing Foots Cray from Orpington and forgetting to dial 01 first. The people who have been bedevilled with calls for the doctor have asked and asked about this and have been told not to be stupid, to go away and forget it. This may be a small matter to my right hon. Friend, but to these 100 or 200 local constituents it is an everlasting misery.
My right hon. Friend has asked for a great deal of money. I hope that he will use his initiative and ability to see that the postal service is restored, so that we have real first-class mail. I hope ere long he will give us a much larger proportion of private lines rather than the shared ones which bring embarrassment and delays to people who need private lines because of the nature of their jobs.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. John Golding: I welcome the increase in borrowing powers. I refer the House to a Press statement of the Post Office Corporation of 1st October, 1969, which said:
"The Board of the new Post Office Corporation will prepare and complete a broad development plan by mid-1971. It will then put into effect over the following five years this blueprint for the Post Office of the future."
This statement also referred to the greatest asset of the new Corporation being the loyal staff, the 42,000 people who are the new Post Office Corporation. It also revealed that there would be a 50 per cent. increase in the number of telephone connections in the coming five years without an increase in staff.
Where is that broad development plan? What has happened to the loyal staff? Can the Post Office now rely on ever-increasing labour productivity? All of us realise that the staff of the Post Office face the future now with less confidence than they did on 1st October, 1969, and many of them then were apprehensive about the loss of Civil Service status.
The years 1964–70 were relatively good years for the Post Office. Despite what the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister would have people believe, the Post Office was far from being broke when the Government took office. The

393
last time the Post Office made a loss was in 1956–67, when the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) was Postmaster-General. After those days, it began to recover. I say that in joke, but there is a myth that at one time things were bright and now are much worse.
In 1964, the Post Office made a profit of £20 million; in 1965, it was £40 million; in 1966, it was £44 million; in 1967, it was £39 million; in 1968, it was £44 million; in 1969, it was £36 million. Those were the overall surpluses. There have been massive surpluses on telecommunications. That is not surprising when one looks at the productivity record of telecommunications.
I keep asking the right hon. Gentleman to announce loudly the productivity achievements of telecommunications. I wish he would do the job himself. Since 1964, over 41,000 rank and file engineering jobs on the telecommunications side alone have been saved as a result of the union's initiative in productivity bargaining. There are now only about two-thirds of the staff that would have been needed had the union not taken that initiative. Productivity has increased by 8 per cent. per year compared with 2½ per cent. national average. This is something of which the members of my union, the Post Office Engineering Union, are proud.
There was a revealing Answer recently. I do not know what prompted the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) to put the Question down, but he asked what was the increase in prices in telecommunications between 1964 and 1970 and how much of that increase had been contributed to by wage increases. The Answer was that prices increased by only 8 per cent. and of that 8 per cent. only 27 per cent. was due to increases in wages. That is to say, wage-cost inflation in telecommunications was ·03 per cent. during the years of the Labour Government. That is a record of which we can be very proud.
Profitability has come not only from changes in working practices, which have not been easily introduced; it has also come through a massive increase in investment. When I first prepared speeches for Post Office debates back in 1960–61, the investment figure was £94 million. That was in the days of the dynamic Tory
394
Administration before 1964. Today the Minister is able to tell us about sums amounting to £400 million. It is clear that between 1964 and 1970 a revolution took place within telecommunications because for the first time Ministers took their jobs seriously in the matter of investment. Such sums as £400 million a year are massive and they need public control. I do not want to go over the arguments that I adduced in the debate on the Committee of Public Accounts on 16th November, but I argued at that time that the Public Accounts Committee was right to call for continuing scrutiny of Post Office investment because the figures were so large.
I should like to refer to the arguments put to me in that debate by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom I am glad to see on the Treasury Bench tonight. He referred to the "constant stimulus" of setting financial targets. He referred also to the commercial accountants, Cooper Brothers, and Touch Ross Bailey and Smart. He also mentioned the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. None of these is appropriate to the problem of assessing the correctness or otherwise of Post Office investment because the decisions which are taken are technical decisions, and these bodies are not appropriate to examine the type of technical decisions which are taken in the Post Office.
The target setting is a laughable exercise. Hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) can tell the House of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries Report on Ministerial responsibility, and of the Report which has just been made on the British Airports Authority. They can speak of the cynicism within the Select Committee towards target setting. In the case of the Post Office, it began with "Think of a number and halve it." Last year the system was changed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) took the figure of 8½ per cent. and increased it to 10 per cent. in order to increase self-financing. It is a most arbitrary piece of mumbo-jumbo. The quicker that the Government look again at target setting, the better it will be for each of the nationalised industries.
Commercial accountants are not really appropriate. We are not charging the

395
Post Office officials with dishonesty. We are not concerned with a check of the books. This is the mistake that was made in the case of Rolls-Royce. It is the technical decision, the technical future, that really requires assessment. We do not need an examination of the books to see whether anything is being fiddled. I am very sorry to have seen the ending of the Post Office E.D.C. There was a body that was doing a very useful job in making assessments of developments within telecommunications.
I will not refer again to the problems of people who are waiting for telephones because private manufacturers fail time and time again to deliver on dates that they have promised. Neither is it necessary to draw attention again to the declining griup that the telecommunications equipment industry has on world trade. I am content to echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends and to point out that, apart from certain commercial difficulties like increasing the calling rate, the Post Office's big problem at the moment is to regain the loyalty of its staff and to give leadership to its staff. It has crumbled. I am not surprised when my post is late. Morale is lower in the Post Office today than it has ever been. We do not want to anticipate the arguments that will be put to the Committee of Inquiry, but many of us associated with the Post Office unions have been disgusted with the behaviour of the present leadership of the Post Office. We cannot bring ourselves to persuade our people, as we persuaded them between 1964 and 1970, to accept changes, to drive on towards greater productivity, and to do the best that they can in the knowledge that their efforts will be rewarded. We cannot do that because we see them facing a Government and an employer who are determined that they will not get a fair deal.
11.12 p.m.
Mr. John Gorst: I see this debate as an opportunity to give a slight tug to the tail of the sacred cow beloved by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I assure them that my intention is not to milk that sacred cow. It is to make some reference to the borrowing powers of this nationalised industry.
I ought perhaps to declare a slight interest in this matter. I was the founder
396
of a telephone users' association and, until last year, I acted as its secretary. It is a non-s profit-making body and is supported by members of all parties.
I am not concerned with the Post Office's vested interests as a monopoly supplier of labour, even though it slipped a little in its monopoly during the recent postal strike. Nor am I concerned with its monopoly position as a purchaser of equipment. My concern is with what I think will be in the best interests of the consumer.
The Post Office needs to borrow an additional £500 million. I suggest that some of the money should be obtained from private sources. The policy of this Government is to disengage from industry wherever possible in the interests of efficiency and of satisfying the requirements of the consumers, whether they be in the public or the private sector of the community. In view of the mounting numbers of telephone users, the private sector should be given the opportunity of entering into the supply of some of the capital requirements of the postal and telecommunications services.
There are a number of reasons why this is desirable. First and foremost if we could have an element of private capital involved in the telecommunications service it would act as a yardstick by which comparison of what is done in the public sector could be made and it would also act as a form of discipline. Furthermore, it would enable some of the possibilities to be excavated more quickly than they are nowadays by the slow-moving research carried out by the Post Office.
Above all, and this is the most important reason, it would be a more appropriate proposition for private capital to be taking the risks inherent in any rapidly-developing technological industry. One of the major drawbacks which this country's telecommunications service has had to face throughout past decades under Governments, both Conservative and Labour, has been the fact that equipment which has become obsolescent has remained in use simply to avoid the apparent wastage that would be involved if it were taken out of use.
It is not appropriate for taxpayers' money to be used to take high risks in a

397
technologically developing area. This is a proper area for private money to be put at risk. I ask my right hon. Friend to deal with this. Has he considered that some of the £500 million which is needed could come from private sources? If he has considered this and rejected it at the moment could he give some indication that he is considering for the future, if not necessarily in the next year at any rate by 1973 when we shall be considering the next borrowing powers Measure, whether some of the capital requirements voraciously required by this growing industry could be obtained from private sources?
The position is that we are requiring more and more capital for this rapidly-growing industry and unfortunately, as the experience of consumers shows, the more we put in the more we succeed in marking time. There is an inadequate amount of capital available for all the unexplored, uninvented and development possibilities. This is the area in which I urge my right hon. Friend to give consideration to the use of private capital.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chataway.
Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. I wish to take part in this debate. I have risen in my place since the beginning of the debate and I have something of substance to offer to the House. I claim the right to do so, although the hour is late. I must apologise to the House for that reason, but it is not my fault that I am called late in the evening.
Mr. Speaker: There is a time limit and the Minister wants to reply. I think that the House would like him to do so. No doubt if the hon. Member could confine himself to about two minutes then the Minister will allow him to speak.
11.19 p.m.
Mr. J. T. Price: I am grateful. I will be brief, although I am always provoked into speaking for longer than I intend. This is the end of an arduous day for some of us who have been here since early this morning. I submit that, although any Minister who comes to the House at any time of day or night for such large sums as £500
398
million must be prepared to run the gauntlet of criticism from all parts of the House, the right hon. Gentleman has no right to complain if I put to him a substantial point, even if it is late and even if I am limited by the Standing Order.
In submitting his Order he has in his usual fluent and good-humoured way said that he expects the Post Office to incur a loss of the order of £70 million. He did not say whether this was on the domestic side of the Post Office or on the telecommunications plus domestic side.
My recollection, as a member of the Standing Committee which considered the 1969 Measure in depth, and as a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, when I made myself familiar with some of the figures involved, makes with me believe that the Minister's earlier statement in support of his Order that 50 per cent. of the Post Office's capital requirements has to be produced from internal resources, is a very serious denial of sound principles of public finance.
If the forecasts of the Post Office or of any Government Department require current revenue to produce such a high proportion of capital for renewal of capital works, current resources are being seriously overcharged. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to spend an hour with one of the classic books on public finance, written by our late lamented colleague and friend, Dr. Hugh Dalton, he would find that that view has never been seriously challenged.
I support what the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has said about the source of financing these great industries. I sometimes run the gauntlet of being slightly heretical on this side in speaking as did the hon. Gentleman at perhaps greater length, and quoting Italian and other authorities in support of my argument. On another occasion, I should like to develop my arguments more cogently, rationally and fluently than time has permitted me this evening.
11.22 p.m.
Mr. Chataway: I make no complaint about the cogency, the fluency and the rationality of the argument advanced by

399
the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). The figure I quoted was for posts. I said that a revenue loss of over £40 million was expected in any case during the current financial year, 1970–71, and that the effects of the strike had added £30 million, to make a sum of £70 million.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of a self-financing ratio. A target was set by my predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house), and I am sure that the House would not think it unreasonable, because it is based on a 10 per cent, return on capital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) argued persuasively that the Post Office ought to go for perhaps some part of its capital requirements to the market. He will know that the Government as a whole are looking at the nationalised industries with a view to promoting just such a policy. But it will be appreciated by the hon. Member for Westhoughton and other hon. Members that a 10 per cent. return on capital can hardly be said to be an excessive return in a rapidly expanding industry such as this, of a technologically advanced nature. If one were seeking to provide capital for the Post Office, one would certainly have to look at that figure.
Nearly all those who have spoken have drawn attention to the very large sums involved, and to the difficulties which the Post Office almost inevitably faces in meeting the rapidly exploding demand. One can appreciate the scale from four figures: roughly speaking, the number of telephones in 1950 was 5 million; in 1960, 8 million; in 1970, 14 million, and by 1980, the last estimate—which is now reckoned to be probably an underestimate—was 34 million. So we are at the moment in a period of very rapid expansion indeed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) drew attention to the difficulties that have been faced by her constituents. There are two broad reasons for the delays about which she and other hon. Members complained. The first is that, all the time, forecasts of demand are being exceeded in reality. To give just one figure, the forecast made in 1969, for example,
400
of the supply of connections in 1970–71 was 1,030,000. In reality, the number of connections which are likely to have been made during the year 1970–71 is 1,150,000. So the Post Office succeeded, by a very substantial margin, in exceeding the estimated number of connections. But despite that fact, during the year there was a growth in the waiting list from 110,000 to 140,000. The growth is largely due to the fact that manufacturers are being asked consequently to do more than it was expected would be required of them.
The second reason is that there are technological difficulties associated with the present transition from strowger to crossbar to electronic exchanges. There are unresolved technical problems here. There would be no point in trying now to apportion blame between the parties concerned. There are those who would argue that the wrong decision was taken by the Post Office in the early 1950s initially, in trying to go straight from strowger to electronic by-passing the intermediate technology of the crossbar system. That is an argument that is still hotly contested on both sides. There are difficulties which everyone in the Post Office would readily concede are by no means the fault only of the manufacturers. But the need for expanding output is very readily accepted on all sides.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) referred to the effects of the postal strike. I certainly do not want to be drawn into any argument on the details of the dispute at a time when the Committee of Settlement is looking into these matters.
However, I was asked by the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw whether the loss of £27 million on the postal side of the Post Office as a result of the postal strike would have an effect upon the future estimates of the Post Office. Clearly it will. He asked whether I was justified in forecasting that if the original demand of the Union of Post Office Workers for ½19 per cent. had been met, this would inevitably have meant a nine old penny stamp next year. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in broad terms, to have met that particular

401
increase at that time would have meant a direct increase of costs of £37 million, with consequentials some £50 million, since there could have been no further tariff increases this year, a major tariff increase having been already effected. This would have meant £100 million to be met by next year, which would have involved an increase of two old pence, or one new penny. Those figures are to be contrasted with the £27 million which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman used this debate for an attack upon an official of the Post Office. I resist strongly some of the implications of his remarks. I draw his attention to the fact that there was a" no victimisation" agreement to which the official to whom he referred was undoubtedly drawing the attention of employees.
The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) asked me a number of questions, and I hope that by nods and shakings of the head at the time I was able to give him a number of answers.
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No.3 (Exempted business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Order, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (LOANS)
11.30 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland Loans (Increase of Limit) Order, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.
After the very full debate which the House had earlier today on the subject of Northern Ireland, I believe that I can speak to the Motion briefly. The Order is the first of its kind and it is right that I should give a brief explanation of how it comes before the House and what it does.
As the House will know, the United Kingdom Government have lent to the
402
Northern Ireland Government for many years to help to meet the latter's capital spending needs. Since 1950 this has been done under the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act of that year, as amended by subsequent legislation. Each time that the borrowing limit had to be increased, a new statutory provision was necessary. Under the Finance Acts of 1965, 1967 and 1969, the limit was progressively increased to £70 million, £120 million and £170 million respectively.
This procedure had proved very cumbersome, so the previous Government, in last year's Finance Act, introduced a more up-to-date and permanent arrangement. Section 35 of that Act did three things. First, it provided that there should be no more borrowing under the 1950 Act as amended. Second, it established a new borrowing power with a limit of £50 million. Third, it provided that that limit of £50 million could be increased by Order: such an Order could increase the limit by up to £50 million, but there should be no more than three such Orders under the Section.
This is the first of such Orders and it increases the limit from £50 million to £100 million as from 1st May this year. The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has laid a Report on the Order only this afternoon.
The Order is necessary because the Northern Ireland Government have already borrowed £38 million of the original £50 million permitted under the Act and will probably need to borrow about £70 million in the present financial year. The capital requirements of the Northern Ireland Government are increasing as their programme of improving the housing and infrastructure of the Province goes on, and these requirements are in excess of what they can hope to raise from local or open market borrowing.
It might help the House if I point out that the Northern Ireland Government lend to local authorities in the Province on exactly the same conditions as the Public Works Loan Board does in Great Britain—that is, each authority borrows a quota from the Government and is expected to raise the remainder of its needs in the market while the Government stands behind it as lender of last resort if it is unable to do this.
The Northern Ireland Government also finance the Electricity Board for

403
Northern Ireland in much the same way, lending the Board part of its requirements in the first instance and standing behind it if it is unable to find the rest of the money in the market. Almost the whole of the Northern Ireland Government's borrowing from the National Loans Fund is required for the on-lending I have described.
Perhaps it would be right that in this context I should from this Dispatch Box reaffirm what was said by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in his discussions with the Northern Ireland Government on 9th and 10th October, 1969 and published as a White Paper—Cmnd. 4178—paragraph 12 of which stated that the then Home Secretary—that is, {the right hon. Gentleman—
"affirmed the intention of the United Kingdom Government to cover the agreed capital requirements of Northern Ireland on a continuing basis"
This means that they are able to turn to the National Loans Fund as their main source of borrowing. They borrow also by Ulster Savings Certificates and stock issues, which is welcome as a supplement to their borrowing from the National Loans Fund. But it seems right that they should have the reassurance, which I affirm tonight, of this availability of funds from the National Loans Fund.
I have spoken but briefly, as is appropriate, I think, at this time of night. If any right hon. or hon. Members have queries to raise, I shall do my best to answer them.
11.35 p.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: We welcome that the Financial Secretary now has to come before the House in this way so that we may question him about the way in which the money is to be used or spent, since this is, in fact, a loan from the United Kingdom taxpayer, including the Ulster taxpayer, to the Northern Ireland Government.
The sum involved is not small. To what extent is it a general sum being made available at the request of the Northern Ireland Government, following the agreement made with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when Home Secretary,
404
and to what extent is it a sum agreed for specific projects in relation to housing and the infrastructure? To what extent are the specific projects for which money is requested brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and to what extent are they agreed?
Second—the hon. Gentleman said that a lot of the money would go to housing —what will be the position when we have a central housing authority? Will it be just a block sum allocated to the central housing authority, and what will be the responsibility of both the Northern Ireland Government and Her Majesty's Government for the whole Kingdom in supervising the affairs of that authority?
11.37 p.m.
Mr. Rafton Pounder: I shall follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in putting one or two questions, not making a speech. I shall omit one of my questions, for the hon. Gentleman has raised it already, that is, to ask whether this money earmarked for something special or provided in a general sense.
My recollection is that, shortly before the election, the then Home Secretary agreed a five-year development programme for Northern Ireland, and this was subsequently endorsed by the incoming Administration. Do I take it, therefore, that this £50 million is part of the funding of the British Government's assistance to that five-year programme, or is it in a separate and special category?
Mr. McNamara: When opening the main debate earlier today, the Home Secretary said that the five-year development programme was being looked at again in any event.
Mr. Pounder: I realise that, but although it is being looked at again, I presume that that is on the periphery of the examination which is taking place rather than in the nature of a fundamental reappraisal of the whole programme which had been agreed prior to June and endorsed subsequently. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will clear up that apparent misunderstanding between the hon. Gentleman and myself.
As there may be two further Orders covering comparable amounts later, am I right in assuming that there will be

405
nothing to prevent a future Order, or, indeed, this one, being used for industrial inducements, or is one tied to infrastructure, the Northern Ireland Government's lending to local authorities, and allied subjects?
My hon. Friend said that the British Government stood as lender of last resort. This raises, therefore, the question of the position of Northern Ireland stock, as I understand it, in better times it would have been possible for the Northern Ireland Government to go to the open market to raise the money, but in view of our current difficulties this is deemed a cleaner way. This question of Northern Ireland stock is one that I find raised with me occasionally by the Belfast Stock Exchange. Apparently it does not have a Treasury rating, and therefore does not occupy a rather privileged position that Treasury stocks usually do when they go to the open market. I hope that my hon. Friend can comment on this, because seemingly it presents certain underwriting problems and tax problems for those who acquire such stock. Since Northern Ireland is so clearly part of the United Kingdom, and Her Majesty's Government do stand as the lender of last resort, if there is this anomaly would not it be possible by means of the Order or another Order to tidy it up and have Northern Ireland stock on all fours with ordinary Treasury stock?
11.41 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Did the reference by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to improving the infrastructure of the Province include such matters as the further development of the motorway system and the Belfast Airport complex, now that the airport is being transferred to a Northern Ireland authority?
11.42 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: The House will not want to deny the passage of this Order, but some interesting points have been raised to which I am sure the Financial Secretary will want to reply.
I believe that there would not be much joy for Northern Ireland in going to the capital market for these loans. It would have to pay much more for them than it would presumably pay to the
406
Treasury. But this brings me to my first question. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what rate of interest is being nominally charged to the Northern Ireland Government? Section 35(4) of the Finance Act, 1970 lays down that
"Loans … shall be repaid at such times and by such methods, and interest thereon shall be paid at such rates and such times, as may from time to time be determined by the Treasury; …"
The hon. Gentleman will probably be able to tell some of his colleagues that they are doing much better out of the Treasury than they would if they went to the open market for some of these loans.
How is the £50 million accounted for? Is there any publication which sets out how this capital sum has gone quite quickly? If I caught the Financial Secretary's figures aright, he said that £170 million had gone in the past 20 years, and now it is £50 million in one year, since May, 1970. If that is right it means that there has been, as we hope, a substantial stepping up in the development programme, and now we are asked for another £50 million.
Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea how long this tranche is expected to last the Northern Ireland Government? There are two further tranches that he can take, but I think that the House would like to know how long he expects it to last, and, more important, how is it being spent, and how will it be accounted for. Before we vote £50 million, it would be useful to the House to have some idea how the first £50 million has been spent. That seems a reasonable request. I am sure that it is going for such things as housing and roads—at least, I assume so.
I have one particular point in connection with Harland and Wolff. It has had a loan of, I think, £8 million, which I believe derived from the Shipbuilding Industry Board, and an investment grant of £5 million. The Board will be wound up at the end of the year. There is little doubt that Harland and Wolff will have a substantial need for cash over the next year or two, until it has worked off the orders that it attracted from Mr. Onassis at, I regret to say, a substantial loss. Mr. Onassis is a very lucky man. He has had ships built for him very cheaply. He could afford not to take a dividend on his capital.

407
If it is in need of the money and the Shipbuilding Industry Board is to be wound up, as we understand and which I regret, will the management of Harland and Wolff be able to qualify for grants or loans from the fund to enable it to carry on business? This is a remarkable enterprise, one of the most exciting I have seen. The only thing I regretted was that in a total labour force of 8,500, only 500 were Catholics and 8,000 were Protestants. This is a ratio which we must try to change. However, it is a most remarkable establishment, and it would be wrong if the winding-up of the Shipbuilding Industry Board were to prevent Harland and Wolff from getting the cash needed.
11.47 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am grateful for the welcome given to the Order by both sides of the House.
A number of hon. Members have asked to what use the money whch is to be lent under the Order will be put by the Northern Ireland Government. Under the Finance Act, 1970, lending from the National Loans Fund to Northern Ireland must be on expenditure which, in the opinion of the United Kingdom Treasury, is of a capital nature, and from time to time the projects on which the money may be spent are described in general terms in agreements between the two Governments.
The current administrative arrangements cover lending—that is, on-lending —by the Northern Ireland Government to local and public authorities, acquiring land for new towns and lending for certain agricultural purposes. To some extent, this answers the question by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The United Kingdom Government do not attempt to specify in detail upon what the Northern Ireland Government may spend the money they borrow from the National Loans Fund. They establish certain broad categories which operate for the time being, but the agreement is, as always, open to renegotiation and new arrangements establishing different categories can be substituted.
In that way, the precise use of the money within the broad rules of the Finance Act, 1970, is entirely a matter
408
within the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government and is not subject to scrutiny by Whitehall. That means that one must look to publications of the Northern Ireland Government to find out how the money has been spent. It is not detailed in this country. I am told that there are publications, in much the same way as we would have for our National Loans Funds, detailing the expenditure which the Northern Ireland Government have made drawing on the money they have borrowed.
Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to what extent, if at all, Whitehall agrees or acquiesces in the priorities as established by Stormont? Does Whitehall always accept them automatically, or does it suggest that there may be different emphases in different places?
Mr. Jenkin: I have no doubt that there is a continuing dialogue within the arrangements which exist for supervising the financial dealings between the two countries, but it would be quite wrong for my Department to attempt in any way to dictate to the Stormont Government what it should do with money which is broadly within its responsibility. Apart from laying down the broad general categories which I have described, that is the limit of the interference by Westminster.
I am informed, however, that money that the Northern Ireland Government borrows from the National Loans Fund in the current financial year will be used for lending as to one-half to local authorities in Northern Ireland, mainly for housing and environmental services, education and road, one quarter to the Northern Ireland Housing Trust and new towns, and the remaining one-quarter to the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland to replace the maturing market debt and for new capital expenditure. The motorway was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). How money is allocated as between motorways and other road and infrastructure spending is entirely within the competence of the Northern Ireland Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) asked what was the relationship of the money lent

409
under the order and the money to be spent on the five-year development programme. The money lent to the Northern Ireland Government under the order forms part of the capital resources available to the Northern Ireland Government to meet the expenditure on its £75 million five-year programme. As has been said, this programme covers urban development, housing and various other matters, some of which are within the terms of the Finance Act, 1970, and some of which are not.
To the extent that money is available under that Act and this order for that programme, the Northern Ireland's Government's own resources can be deployed on the matters which are outside the terms of that Act. There is nothing to prevent any future order or new agreement between the two Governments from altering the current parameters of the expenditure of money borrowed from the National Loans Fund.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East asked about the lending terms. The broad answer is that the loans made by the National Loans Fund are broadly on the same terms that the United Kingdom Government can get when they go to the market in this country for loans of comparable length or comparable terms. As such, the Northern Ireland Government is paying broadly the current gilt-edged rate.
The right hon. Member was entirely right—he knows vastly more about this than I, having been at the Treasury much longer—when he told my hon. Friend that these were probably better terms than the Northern Ireland Government itself could hope to obtain if it went itself to the market. I am sure that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that in this context the Northern Ireland Government's own powers to go to the market are of the same nature as the borrowing powers of major local authorities in Great Britain. It has always been established practice that
410
those authorities do not get a Treasury guarantee, and so their stock is not gilt-edged. If the Treasury needs to give a guarantee, it is better that the Treasury should itself borrow and then lend on through the National Loans Fund. I believe that most people would regard that as the right course.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how long this tranche of the borrowing might be expected to last. Perhaps some clue is given in the figures which I gave, that, of the first £50 million in last year's Act, £38 million has already gone, and the spending in the current financial year is estimated to be about £70 million. So one would expect to have to come back with another Order within the twelvemonth. But this very much depends on how the spending goes.
Finally, questions were asked about Harland and Wolff. From the categories which I gave earlier in answer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North it is apparent that this money is not available for industrial investment, but the fact that it is available to meet environment, roads, housing and other purposes means that Northern Ireland Government's own resources are available for lending to Harland and Wolff and for any other industrial purposes. Indeed, the Harland and Wolff loan is not dependent on the Shipbuilding Industry Board. This is a matter entirely for the Northern Ireland Government and is in accordance with their statutory powers to lend and to make grants to industry.
I hope that I have answered all the points raised in this short debate and that the House will feel it right to agree to the Motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland Loans (Increase of Limit) Order, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.

Lincoln (Unemployment)
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]
11.56 p.m.
Mr. Dick Taverne: I am glad to have this opportunity to raise a matter of the greatest importance for over 3,000 of my constituents, namely, the very serious unemployment situation in Lincoln.
I should first describe the background. Employment in Lincoln is heavily dependent on engineering. We produce diesel engines, large and small, gas turbines, excavators, cranes, parts for the motor industry and the aerospace industry, boilers and a host of other engineering products. I have long felt, as did my predecessor, the present hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), that we should have greater security if we were less heavily dependent on one industry, but until last year the position was never serious.
As the heavy engineering products are varied, dependent on different markets at home and abroad, there was traditionally an element of swings and roundabouts: one firm generally took up the slack of another. As our unemployment was never much above the national average, we were in no position to claim favours compared with the depressed areas.
One would have expected an engineering centre near the edge of the prosperous Midlands to expand and there were many studies and reports published by the East Midlands Council which saw Lincoln in their prognostications as a growth point. But instead, the population has greatly declined. It has fallen over the last four years from 77,320 to 74,740 in 1970, when the last count was taken.
In addition, we have had more than our fair share of mergers, one of which ended in a closure affecting over 600 people a few years ago. There is undoubtedly a sense of insecurity which has spread and has to some extent affected morale.
This is the background. Last November, unemployment in Lincoln stood at 3–1 per cent., higher than in many intermediate areas. But since then, the position has worsened drastically. The
412
figures rose to 4 per cent. in January and then to 6–6 per cent. in February and the same figure in March. One major cause was heavy redundancies in a firm which makes cranes and excavators, and the unemployment figures in manufacturing in particular are much higher than they were in any previous years.
When I raised the position with the Minister in early March, he told me that he could not give Lincoln the intermediate status for which I asked. He turned this down for three reasons, and no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. The first reason was that our figures included a considerable proportion of part-time unemployed, and that full-time unemployment was only 4–1 per cent. at the time, although the March total is rather higher. Secondly, we were a relatively small area, and intermediate areas were designed for larger "grey" areas. Thirdly, he said—and this is a point of considerable substance—that it was important not to dilute the concept of intermediate status. I do not accept that the refusal was justified at that time, and since then the position has worsened.
I want to put to the Minister the following reasons why Lincoln now needs the special help which intermediate status at least can give us. First—a comparatively minor point—our figures are somewhat depressed by a below-average number of women employed. Many who would be on the register elsewhere are not on the register in Lincoln. This makes the total figures look better than they are.
Secondly, and rather more important, we are in a somewhat isolated position. There are no nearby areas where alternative employment is available. Gains-borough, Grantham, Sleaford and Newark, while not as badly hit as us, are in no specially favourable position in their unemployment rate and have no spare jobs to offer, nor have our rural surroundings. At a time of expansion they can provide an extra supply of labour, but at a time of slack they can offer no supply of work.
The third point which I wish to stress to the Minister is that several nearby areas can offer greater advantages to a prospective employer, and that policy discriminates in their favour.South

413
Yorkshire, which is not so far away, is an intermediate area, although the average level of unemployment there is no higher. Gainsborough is an area for London overspill. Lindsey, which is just over the city border—and parts of it are in the same employment exchange area—has a 10,000 sq. ft. limit before an industrial development certificate is needed, whereas our limit is 5,000 sq. ft. as for the East Midlands generally. But then for the East Midlands as a whole the average rate of unemployment in March was only 2.7 per cent. This general limit is wholly inappropriate for an area which has a figure of much more than that.
Fourthly, as I have mentioned, our position has worsened since March. There are now, in addition, 600 part-time unemployed at a forge who do not feature in the figures, and are not likely to, because by accident they do not appear on the Monday count, the day when the count is taken. Another firm, which secured some time ago a £5 million export contract for diesels for East Pakistan which were to be paid for from West Pakistan, has been hard hit by the catastrophe in East Bengal. A large question mark must now hang over the whole order, and some of the shipments are in a state of suspense. From 23rd April, 1970, 270 workers will be on a four-day shift, and this firm has suffered a bitter blow which it will take a long time to overcome.
My last reason is that even when allowance is made for some of the 6.6 per cent. total being part-timers, if one counts only one-fifth of these as equivalent to full-time unemployed, we in Lincoln are worse placed than some areas which have not intermediate status but special development area status. Our rate on that basis is well over 5 per cent., yet figures published on 25th March show that most of the special development areas of Wales, for example, are no worse off than we are. In fact, five or the nine are below 5 per cent.
Lincoln now needs help. There are grave dangers for the future. Intermediate status can give this help. The land is there for industrial development. If, despite the clear case for giving us this aid, the Minister feels unable to do so, at least he could unequivocally declare that there will be no obstacles to
414
giving industrial development certificates for would-be employers of Lincoln labour. I know that, in practice, applications have nearly always been granted, but the fact that approval still has to be obtained is in itself an obstacle to applying. As an absolute minimum, the Minister should agree to raise the limit to 10,000 square feet which applies just outside the city boundaries in Lindsey.
I trust that this serious situation for my constituents will be recognised by the Government and that they will provide the remedies which we need and which they have it in their power to provide.
12.7 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) has once again expressed very eloquently his concern about the employment situation in Lincoln. I have of course already had a personal discussion with him, as he said, on the position and prospects of the area. I am glad that he has taken the opportunity to bring this question before the House.
I appreciate the concern that is felt locally about the current level of unemployment and the short-time working and the anxiety that the specialised nature of much of local employment in the engineering and electrical goods sector may make the area specially vulnerable. However, I think it is important at the outset to set the unemployment statistics in their proper perspective.
It is true that, in March, the total number of unemployed was 3,500, equivalent to a rate of 6.6 per cent. compared with the 2,002, or 3.7 per cent., a year ago. But practically the whole of this increase is attributable to the fact that some 1,200 workers at one firm have been placed on a four-day week. I note, too, with regret the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned. We have just heard ourselves that Dorman Diesel will have to put 270 workers on short time owing to a decline in the market for their productions in the circumstances he mentioned.
But short-time working, although disquieting, does not present nearly such acute problems as does actual unemployment. The key figures for Lincoln,

415
therefore, are those for the wholly unemployed, that is to say, 2,287 in number in March, equivalent to a rate of 4.3 per cent. These figures are admittedly somewhat higher than a year ago, but the increase has been of much the same order as for the rest of the region and for Great Britain as a whole.
While I fully appreciate the reasons that led the hon. and learned Gentleman to dwell on the problems of Lincoln. I cannot accept that an adequate case has been put made out for assisted status.
Mr. Taverne: It is not quite fair to disregard the short-time working because it was agreed to as an alternative to a larger number of redundancies, and therefore, if one takes a proportion of this—I suggested one-fifth equivalent to redundancies—the figure is still over the 4.3 per cent. Indeed, taking account of the short-time working there now, it is up to over 5 per cent.
Mr. Grant: To compare it truly with other parts of the country, one must look at the full unemployment situation. There may be part-time working in other assisted areas. I maintain that it is the wholly unemployed situation which is the crucial test.
As I was saying, I regret that I cannot accept that an adequate case has been made out for assisted status. A comprehensive survey of areas throughout the country with problems of unemployment, poor industrial structure and inadequate economic growth has only just been concluded as part of the Government's review of regional policy. We did not then consider that there was a strong enough case for assisted status for Lincoln, and I do not think that the situation has changed sufficiently since that time to cause us to alter our decision.
Perhaps I might explain some of the reasons underlying this decision. In evaluating the case of any area for assisted status, we have to look not only at the numbers and rates of unemployed but also at the age structure, the real size of the labour pool involved, migration movements and the prospects and locational attractions of the area. Moreover, the claims of any area must be set against those of other areas, and
416
determined in the light of the limited supply of mobile industry.
The major conclusion to emerge from the review was that it was essential to give greater priority to the problems of the older industrial conurbations in the development areas with high persistent unemployment—for example, West Central Scotland with nearly 60,000 unemployed—and the shortage of mobile industry meant that only in quite exceptional circumstances could new areas be given assisted status. Lincoln's unemployment problems are clearly much less pressing than those of the development or of the intermediate areas. The Yorkshire Coalfield Intermediate Area, for example, had unemployment totalling 19,300 in February, a rate of 4·6 per cent.; and the North Humberside Intermediate Area had 8,960 unemployed, a rate of 4·8 per cent.
Lincoln is attractively located with a highly-skilled labour force and a substantial base of engineering industry. Lincoln faces neither the comparative isolation of North Humberside, nor the widespread dereliction and limited industrial base of the coalfield. Nor does Lincoln present the exceptional problems of the newly-listed intermediate areas—for example, Edinburgh and Portabello with 6,300 people unemployed, completely surrounded by the Scottish and Northern development areas, or of Bridlington/Filey and Okehampton/Tavistock where stubborn, though small-scale, unemployment problems are compounded by proximity to assisted areas.
There are, of course, a number of other areas similar to Lincoln. If we were to extend assisted status to Lincoln, therefore, we would have, in equity, to extend the same treatment to a number of other claimants. The supply of mobile industry is very limited, and no useful purpose is served by spreading the jam too thinly. However, the Government fully intend to keep a close watch on changing circumstances through the country, and the situation in Lincoln will, of course, be kept under review.
I can quite understand the hon. and learned Member's concern that the exemption limit for I.D.C.s in Lincoln is only 5,000 sq. ft., while in that part of Lincolnshire in the Yorks and Humberside Region the limit is 10,000 sq. ft.

417
Lincoln is, of course, in the East Midlands Region where we have thought it right to restrict the recent relaxation of the exemption limits for I.D.C.s to 5,000 sq. ft. I can, however, assure the hon. and learned Member that in practice Lincoln will bear no disadvantage as a consequence of these differences in exemption limits, and it is most unlikely that we shall ever wish to refuse an application for an I.D.C. in Lincoln up to 10,000 sq. ft. We have said clearly that we intend to operate the I.D.C. policy flexibly; that is to say, we shall have regard to difficult local circumstances, even in non-assisted areas.
The situation in Lincoln is, in essence, a reflection of the national situation. Unemployment has been rising largely because many companies are facing continued deterioration in their profit levels and a severe cash shortage, and have responded to increases in wage costs by closing factories and by laying off workers.
I do not want to repeat the Budget debate, in which the hon. and learned Gentleman took a prominent part. But the measures announced last week in the Budget will go some way towards helping to stem the rising tide of unemployment. They should have a beneficial effect on output and investment, and hence employment. Additionally, the Budget gives considerable stimulus to profitable industry and will increase the cash flow of profitable companies, enabling them to expand more easily.
418
These measures, taken together with those introduced since last June, have laid the foundation for our long-term aim of securing soundly based industrial prosperity in Britain, in which growth and investment in all regions of the country will be self-sustaining. But no Budget can achieve such an objective by itself: industry must play its part in achieving steady and sustained growth. A continuation of the cost inflation in industry brought about by excessive wage settlements will put more jobs at risk and could lead to a further increase in unemployment.
However, provided cost inflation can be brought under control, Lincoln with its substantial core of engineering and electrical industry, stands to benefit, in terms both of employment and prosperity, from the stimulus to the economy provided by the Government.
I regret, therefore, that I cannot give any more comfort than that to the hon. and learned Gentleman. But I am sure that he understands, as I hope that the people in Lincoln will, that we have to look at the whole country. We have to look at the overall unemployment position, and I can only say that Lincoln should not be too depressed at its prospects. In the long term, if our policies work out, we believe that Lincoln has a successful and prosperous future before it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Insurance Cards (Checks)
  National Insurance Cards (Checks)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
  Social Security Benefits (Review)
  Social Security Benefits (Review)
  Autistic Adolescents
  Autistic Adolescents
  Dental Services (Increased Charges)
  Dental Services (Increased Charges)
  Retired Pensioners (Allowance)
  Retired Pensioners (Allowance)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  South-East Regional Hospital Board
  South-East Regional Hospital Board
  Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Costs)
  Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Costs)
  National Insurance Pension
  National Insurance Pension
  Calendar Dates (Standardisation)
  Calendar Dates (Standardisation)
  Hearing Aids for Children
  Hearing Aids for Children
  Fisher Committee
  Fisher Committee
  N.H.S. Doctors (Medical Qualifications)
  N.H.S. Doctors (Medical Qualifications)
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Hospital Patients (Relative Costs)
  Hospital Patients (Relative Costs)
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease
  Terminal Patients
  Terminal Patients
  Drug Addicts Centres
  Drug Addicts Centres
  Alimony
  Alimony
  Unclaimed Supplementary Benefit
  Unclaimed Supplementary Benefit
  National Unity
  National Unity
  State Graduated Pension Scheme
  State Graduated Pension Scheme
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  Unemployment Benefits (Short-time Working)
  Unemployment Benefits (Short-time Working)
  Supplementary Benefits (Strikers' Families)
  Supplementary Benefits (Strikers' Families)
  Regional Hospital Boards and Hospital Management Committees
  Regional Hospital Boards and Hospital Management Committees
  National Health Service (Private Practice)
  National Health Service (Private Practice)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Oakwood Hospital
  Oakwood Hospital
  Homeless Families
  Homeless Families
  Doctors (Qualifications)
  Doctors (Qualifications)
  Retirement Pensions (Payment)
  Retirement Pensions (Payment)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Consultants (Private Medical Practice)
  Consultants (Private Medical Practice)
  Queen Victoria Nursing Institution, Wolverhampton
  Queen Victoria Nursing Institution, Wolverhampton
  National Insurance Pension (Purchasing Power)
  National Insurance Pension (Purchasing Power)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Registered Disabled (London)
  Registered Disabled (London)
  Supplementary Allowances (Four- Week Rule)
  Supplementary Allowances (Four- Week Rule)
  Free Milk (National Dairy Council Advertisement)
  Free Milk (National Dairy Council Advertisement)
  Means Tests (Eligibility Ceilings)
  Means Tests (Eligibility Ceilings)
  National Assistance and Supplementary Benefits
  National Assistance and Supplementary Benefits
  Private Beds
  Private Beds
  Prescription Charges (Exemptions)
  Prescription Charges (Exemptions)
  Rent-Stopped Households
  Rent-Stopped Households
  Heating Allowances
  Heating Allowances
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Vessels (Grants)
  Fishing Vessels (Grants)
  Public Appointments
  Public Appointments
  Fishing Vessels (Protection)
  Fishing Vessels (Protection)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Foods (Contamination Monitoring)
  Foods (Contamination Monitoring)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  National Resources
  National Resources
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Government Departments (Settlement of Accounts)
  Government Departments (Settlement of Accounts)
  Incomes (Taxation and Allowances)
  Incomes (Taxation and Allowances)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Crown Land, Hainault
  Crown Land, Hainault
  Building Industry (Untaxed Lorries)
  Building Industry (Untaxed Lorries)
  Value-added Tax
  Value-added Tax
  Retirement Pensioners (Income)
  Retirement Pensioners (Income)
  Expenditure Committee (Evidence)
  Expenditure Committee (Evidence)
  Members of Parliament (Tax Assessments)
  Members of Parliament (Tax Assessments)
  T.U.C. General Council
  T.U.C. General Council
  Budget (Stock Exchange Activity)
  Budget (Stock Exchange Activity)
  Economic Progress Report
  Economic Progress Report
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Earnings and Retail Prices (Increases)
  Earnings and Retail Prices (Increases)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Kenya (Exchange Control Arrangements)
  Kenya (Exchange Control Arrangements)
  East Pakistan Floods (Aid)
  East Pakistan Floods (Aid)
  Multilateral Fund for Commonwealth Technical Co-operation
  Multilateral Fund for Commonwealth Technical Co-operation
AVIATION SUPPLY
  RB211 Engine
  RB211 Engine
  Sonic Boom
  Sonic Boom
  Concorde (Test Flights)
  Concorde (Test Flights)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Motor Industry (N.E.D.C. Committee)
  Motor Industry (N.E.D.C. Committee)
  Ford Motor Company
  Ford Motor Company
  "Panther" (Grounding)
  "Panther" (Grounding)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Rare Animal Skins (Imports)
  Rare Animal Skins (Imports)
  Caernarvonshire (Advance Factory)
  Caernarvonshire (Advance Factory)
  Cardigan and Tremadoc Bays (Oil Prospecting)
  Cardigan and Tremadoc Bays (Oil Prospecting)
  Metrication Board (Annual Report)
  Metrication Board (Annual Report)
  Jet Aircraft (Supersonic Flights)
  Jet Aircraft (Supersonic Flights)
  Property Bonds and Equity Linked Life Assurance
  Property Bonds and Equity Linked Life Assurance
  Local Employment Acts
  Local Employment Acts
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
ENVIRONMENT
  Law Courts (Cleaning)
  Law Courts (Cleaning)
  Morpeth
  Morpeth
  Building Regulations Advisory Committee
  Building Regulations Advisory Committee
  Buildings Over Railways (Costs)
  Buildings Over Railways (Costs)
  Voluntary Housing Movement
  Voluntary Housing Movement
  Council Tenants (Notices to Quit)
  Council Tenants (Notices to Quit)
  Thamesmead (Housing)
  Thamesmead (Housing)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Newcastle-under-Lyme (Sewerage Facilities)
  Newcastle-under-Lyme (Sewerage Facilities)
  Circular 2/70 (Purchase Notices)
  Circular 2/70 (Purchase Notices)
  M606, Bradford (Staithgate Interchange)
  M606, Bradford (Staithgate Interchange)
  Green Belt Land (Redbridge)
  Green Belt Land (Redbridge)
  British Railways Board (Chairman)
  British Railways Board (Chairman)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Little Red School Book
  Little Red School Book
  Fireworks (Accidents)
  Fireworks (Accidents)
  Domestic Fire Extinguishers
  Domestic Fire Extinguishers
  Road Safety Act, 1967 (Section 1)
  Road Safety Act, 1967 (Section 1)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Little Red School Book
  Little Red School Book
  Student Grant
  Student Grant
DEFENCE
  "Panther" (Grounding)
  "Panther" (Grounding)
  REGIONAL MINISTERS
  REGIONAL MINISTERS
  MOTOR INDUSTRY (DISCUSSIONS WITH PRESIDENT NIXON)
  MOTOR INDUSTRY (DISCUSSIONS WITH PRESIDENT NIXON)
  INDUSTRIALISTS (VISITS TO No. 10 DOWNING STREET)
  INDUSTRIALISTS (VISITS TO No. 10 DOWNING STREET)
  BEXLEY
  BEXLEY
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (SPEECH)
  GREENWICH
  GREENWICH
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (OFFICE)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (OFFICE)
  NORWICH
  NORWICH
  PRIME MINISTER (QUESTIONS)
  PRIME MINISTER (QUESTIONS)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
EMPLOYMENT
  Wages
  Wages
  Terms of Employment
  Terms of Employment
  Wages (Wales)
  Wages (Wales)
SCOTLAND
  Invalid Cars
  Invalid Cars
  Goods and Services (Prices)
  Goods and Services (Prices)
  Fireworks (Injuries)
  Fireworks (Injuries)
  Sewerage (Scotland) Act, 1968
  Sewerage (Scotland) Act, 1968
WALES
  Hospital Services (Greater Cardiff Area)
  Hospital Services (Greater Cardiff Area)
  Teaching Hospital, Cardiff
  Teaching Hospital, Cardiff
  Level Crossings
  Level Crossings
  Motorways
  Motorways
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Versa-Serve Limited
  Versa-Serve Limited

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

PEDESTRIANS: SAFETY AND CONTROL
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the issue of some form of directive urging upon pedestrians the desirability of observing a rule of the road as they proceed upon their lawful occasions along the crowded pavements of our towns and cities; and whether they will consider the erection of large notices at suitable points displaying the injunction "Keep to the right" (or "Keep to the left" if thought preferable).]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, in the interests of safety the Highway Code already advises pedestrians not to walk next to the kerb with their backs to the traffic. My right honourable friend sees no justification for attempting to control pedestrians further merely to facilitate their passage along pavements.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer, and for the courtesy and help that he has given me in this matter, may I ask him whether he would not agree that the adoption of my proposal would bring considerable benefit to the urban pedestrian population in this country, and particularly to the blind, the lame and the elderly? Moreover, would it not bring great benefit from the point of view that one would no longer have to weave one's way along the crowded pavements, in imminent danger of headlong collision
196
and consequent loss of temper? Finally, would be not agree that it is time something was done to deal with the congestion that is building up in the streets daily; and that complacency is no answer to the problem?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, my noble friend's supplementary question, particularly the last part of it, goes a long way outside the terms of his original Question. But I agree with him that the solution to this sort of problem lies in reducing the congestion in our cities, and I assure him that the saving of our cities from the onslaught of the motorcar and heavy lorry is high on the list of priorities in my Department.

LONDON/GIBRALTAR AIR FARES
2.42 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what fare increases have been approved on the London-Gibraltar air route with effect from April 1, 1971, and what factors affected the decision to approve these increases.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have approved increases in the fares between London and Gibraltar of 15 per cent. on first-class fares and economy-class midweek excusion fares in the summer peak period and 10 per cent. on economy-class normal fares and the other excursion fares. There are no increases in inclusive tour fares. These changes are broadly in line with changes in international fares to places in neighbouring countries and are designed to increase both traffic and revenue against a background of rising airline costs.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. But is it right, at a time when Gibraltar is seeking to attract an increasing number of tourists, to increase the peak season mid-week fare by 15 per cent., especially when one considers that the Gibraltar Tourist Office are spending

197
£40,000 this year with a view to increasing the number of tourists visiting Gibraltar this summer? As my noble friend mentioned the international pattern, would be not agree that the Gibraltar to London route is a cabotage route and therefore not affected by IATA? Can my noble friend give an assurance that comparable facilities exist for tour operators between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar as the special reduced group I.T.X. fares to Spain were introduced on April 1?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the purpose of increasing the economy-class mid-week excursion fares in the summer peak period by more than the economy-class normal fares is to get a more even spread of traffic through the week. On the second supplementary question, the tour operators are not affected, although I should say that arrangements on part charter inclusive tours are at the prseent time being settled and an announcement will be made shortly. As for the question of comparison with other countries, although we are free to fix our own fares on what is called a cabotage basis to Gibraltar as to Malta, it is inevitable that they should keep in line with other fares because the cost situation is much the same.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government watch carefully the consequences of the uplifting of these fares? Is there not a moral responsibility to support Gibraltar in view of the Spanish action; and would it not be far better to see the tourist industry developed than to have to put subsidies into Gibraltar?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would agree with the development of the tourist industry. That is precisely why there are no increases in inclusive tour fares.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, cannot the noble Lord and his Government be consistent? Cannot they do the same on this issue as they did with the steel industry, and cut their price by half?
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask one further supplementary question of my noble friend? Can he explain the reason for introducing, on April 1, a six-
198
day minimum stay requirement on the night flights? That, I think, will create great difficulty for people who want to go for fewer than six days. Is he aware that for Paris or Nice the requirement is only four days? Would he consider reducing the six-day period to, say, three days? I think it would please the Gibraltar people and Government immensely if he would consider this suggestion seriously with his right honourable friend.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said and I shall pass it on to my right honourable friend. Of course, the six-day minimum stay condition was quite exceptional for Gibraltar, and the present change is merely extending it to the same conditions as apply in the rest of the Iberian Peninsula.

PROPOSED GIBRALTAR/LISBON AIR SERVICE
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what reply they have had to their proposals of last December to the Portuguese Aviation Authorities for the establishment of a Gibraltar Airways (Gibair) service between Gibraltar and Lisbon.]
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the latest communication on the subject was a letter from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Portuguese Director General of Civil Aviation on December 15, 1970. I regret to say that no reply has yet been received.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Would he not agree that it is about time some further initiative was taken by Her Majesty's Government, as that communication was sent over three and a half months ago? As external relations and air communications to and from Gibraltar are solely the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, could not this matter be tackled with a greater sense of priority and urgency? The hands of the Gibraltar Government are tied

199
completely and it is solely the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government; and, much as the Gibraltar Government would like to do something, they cannot because it is outside their prerogative.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have not been by any means quiescent in this matter. They have taken several initiatives, the last of which was a letter just a fortnight ago. I appreciate what the noble Lord says about a sense of priority. Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can, but it takes two to reach an agreement.

LORDS OF APPEAL AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
LORD SHEPHERD: 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 the Leader of the House whether he will consult with the Lord Chancellor in order to make arrangements to enable the Lords of Appeal to attend and give their counsel to the House during the Committee and Report stages of the Industrial Relations Bill.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, this Question has been addressed to me in my capacity as Leader of the House. I have no quarrel with that; but I would remind the noble Lord that this is a subject which is preeminently the concern of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I am, of course, aware that the Bill in question is one on which the noble and learned Lords of Appeal may, quite understandably, wish to speak, and also one on which the House will wish to have their advice. However, I think I should remind your Lordships that the Appellate and Appeal Committees usually adjourn by 4 p.m., so the Law Lords can be present in the Chamber, if they wish, for all but a very short period of the afternoon. I am sure that it will normally be possible for arrangements to be made to allow other Business to be taken in the House until the Law Lords are available, should this be judged necessary.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very grateful for the Answer which the
200
noble Earl the Leader of the House has given to me. I hope he will agree that as this is a very complex Bill, the country as a whole would wish all the experience of your Lordships' House to be made available during its consideration. I hope that in future discussions the Lords of Appeal may be available.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just said; in fact, I think my original Answer indicated that I was aware of these considerations.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we in the trade union world have always been terrified of lawyers and judges? Would it not be better if they kept away from this horrible Bill?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, will be expanding on those sentiments in a few minutes' time.

NEW BROKEN HILL CONSOLIDATED LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
2.48 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved by Lord Delacourt-Smith (on behalf of Lord Shackleton) for the adjournment of the debate on Second Reading; namely, That, as the proceedings on the Bill have been curtailed in such a way that many of its clauses have not even been debated in the elected Chamber and the Bill is already causing grave division within industry and the nation, the debate on the Second Reading be adjourned in order that Her Majesty's Government may now enter into negotiations with both sides of industry free from the conditions on which the Government have so far insisted with a view to seeking agreed solutions to problems of industrial relations and the publication of a workable code of industrial practice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, before I commence my remarks

201
on the debate may I be allowed to say, on behalf of my noble friends, how glad I am to see the Leader of the Opposition back in his place. I hope he has fully recovered and, if he will allow me to say so, that his temperature is restored to normal, and that nothing I say will cause him to have a relapse in that respect. Also before I begin my remarks I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Thomas on a very successful maiden speech. I hope that his unrivalled experience and rare capacity for a telling phrase will often be at the service of the House.
After very nearly 40 speeches on the subject, I thought that, rather than go through them all, the greatest service that I could perform to the House would be to try to draw the various threads of the debate together. This is not altogether easy since the procedural device adopted by the Opposition takes the form of a Motion which is before the House, and what is not before the House is the Bill. The logic and wisdom of the course which the Opposition have adopted is not, to me, self-evident. It is a matter which I shall wish to scrutinise later, but in the meantime may I begin with one or two general observations.
I begin at exactly the point of departure of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan. Britain needs an Industrial Relations Act, and so far in our history we have not had one. All we have had (and I think that I am here quoting as near as I can verbatim from the noble and learned Lord) is a succession of Statutes dealing piecemeal with subjects as they arose. In this single sentence it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord demolished in advance all the elaborate legal special pleading of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and about 800 pages of Mr. Citrine's monumental work. All we have had is piecemeal legislation dealing with problems as they arose. What we have never had (and here again I return to the actual words of the noble and learned Lord) is a comprehensive code.
Lest the House should accuse me of plagiarism, I would humbly beg to remind your Lordships that this is exactly the point which I made on November 14 last, when the House was debating the Consultative Document on the Motion of the
202
noble Lord, Lord Byers. This country needs a comprehensive code and it has never had one. That was exactly the point I made—and it was followed up by the noble and learned Lord yesterday—when I drew a parallel, or rather a contrast, between the development of company law and the development of trade union law in this country. Both evolved from a point at which they were not recognised by English common law, one developing into a comprehensive code in the Companies Act and the other into a jungle of piecemeal legislation in which we have nothing in the way of a comprehensive code.
This leads me to the second general observation I wish to make, and that also was clearly established by the same speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, from which I have already borrowed. It is a complete answer to the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, from the Opposition Benches. If the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that what we want is a comprehensive code—and that I believe to be at the heart of the problem—we cannot have what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, described as a "short, sharp, simple Bill" to deal with unofficial strikes. We cannot have both.
Numerous noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, criticised the Bill as long and complicated. I do not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, also from the Cross Benches, in a remarkable speech to which I will return, in describing it as "light reading". That is perhaps to overstate an excellent case. But I do not think that the Bill is at all so difficult to understand as noble Lords affected to pretend. I think that they should at least remember that the Labour Government printed a Bill themselves after they retreated from In Place of Strife. That was a Bill in which the only trouble was what the toad, Mr. Jackson, said to Mrs. Tittlemouse in Beatrix Potter's famous story, when he was invited to eat a hazelnut.
"'No teeth, Mrs. Tittlemouse,' said Mr. Jackson, 'No teeth.'"
Yet that Bill, even without its teeth, was 97 clauses long, with eight Schedules, and this Bill is only 160 clauses long with nine Schedules. So I do not think it lies in the mouths of noble Lords opposite

203
to complain that this Bill is long and complicated.
The question of teeth enables me to deal with the second of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. He would have accepted, so I inferred, a short, sharp, simple Bill dealing with unofficial strikes or unofficial industrial action, which he described. I think perfectly correctly if he will allow me to say so, as being of the essence of the problem in Great Britain. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, also saved me the trouble of answering that point, because I largely agree with the noble and learned Lord that when all the dust has settled and when all the remarks about Tolpuddle Martyrs have died away those who will feel the impact of the Bill, so far as regards its sanctions, will be
"the dedicated minority who have less interest in industrial peace than in the substitution of a new order of society and regard industrial unrest as one road to that goal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/4/71; col. 45]
The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, and I stand as one on that. That was a point referred to in the equally admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, also from the Cross-Benches last night, although I felt that he was a little unfair to the noble and learned Lord since he did not appear to realise that the noble and learned Lord had dealt with it in the way I have described.
I should also like to dispose of the fallacy that this Bill is what is called—whatever it may mean—"a lawyer's paradise" or, as the noble Lord, Lord Delcourt-Smith, called it, "legalism run mad". I do not know—perhaps the most reverend Primate can tell me—how many of my fraternity will ever reach Paradise. But I must warn them, and indeed the House, that when they get to Paradise, if they do, they will find no more to do there, because law is based upon the one doctrine of the Church which is entirely verifiable by experience—the doctrine of original sin. That is the tendency in human nature whereby the best of us do wrong occasionally, most of us do wrong from time to time and the worst of us do hardly anything else.
Original sin is what law is about. It is a set of rules, probably rather worse than the highest ethical standards, probably a little better than the average
204
ethical standards since its object is to raise the level; a set of rules which attaches to those who do wrong to their neighbours the consequences, more or less disagreeable, of their having done so. The Bill is about law in the field of industrial relations. It does not supplant the need for voluntarism, as some noble Lords have feared. It no more supplants voluntarism than the law of contract supplants voluntarism in business. It only means that people who break their word may occasionally be compelled to pay compensation to those to whom they have done wrong.
Incidentally, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, thinks that the Companies Act supplants voluntarism; or whether the noble Lord. Lord Davies of Leek, who made an interjection to that effect, thinks that registration under the Companies Act is a derogation from the free right of association? Because I can tell them that it is not legalism run mad, nor is it a lawyer's paradise. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who is to speak next, will be the first to remind his noble friends that the Companies Act is much longer than the Bill, and far more difficult to understand. It runs into 300 or 400 sections, and many more Schedules. It gives, as this Bill gives—and it is for the reason, as I have tried to state, exactly parallel to it—privileges in exchange for registration and responsibility. The only pity of it is that this Bill was not introduced in 1862 when the Companies Act was passed, so that for more than 100 years trade unions could have flourished under the beneficient sunshine of the comprehensive code that we now wish to introduce, just as companies have flourished.
So I would say to the melancholy Rhine Maidens on my left, who sound such a doleful dirge about the Tolpuddle Martyrs and the worse things which will befall us now:
"Be of good Cheer ye fearful saints,
The Bill ye so much dread
Is big with mercy and will break
In blessings on your head."
Indeed, I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who spoke bitterly of the employer who did not allow his workmen to join a trade union—and he said that these employers still exist—that for the first time in history the workman can compel his employer to act in accordance with the

205
doctrine of the noble Lord himself. That is what the Bill is about. He spoke, too, of the employer who would not recognise trade unions. But, my Lords, he did not say that for the first time in British history under this Bill a trade union can compel an employer to recognise it by operating the legal mechanisms which are said to be legalism run mad or a lawyer's paradise.
This was, I think, a little less than attention to homework. If you propose a Motion not merely that this Bill should not pass its Second Reading, but that it should not be discussed further at all—and that is, after all, the Question which is now before your Lordships—when your Lordships go (if you do go) into the Division Lobby this evening there is one of two courses open to you. It will be open to you to say that this Bill should not be discussed further at all in Parliament, or that it should go on to further discussion at length and in detail in Committee in order that it may be fully discussed. That is the effect of the Motion that the Opposition have thought fit to put before the House in preference to the Motion for the Second Reading.
LORD BLYTON: If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for interrupting, does he remember that on the Rhodesian Order, which is equivalent to a Second Reading, the Tories voted against it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was not in this House then, and I do not know what the noble Lord is talking about. What I am discussing is the Motion on the Order Paper for which the noble Lord proposes to vote.
There are three points in this Motion. The first is that the Bill has not been adequately discussed in another place; the second is that it has caused grave division in the nation; the third is that the debate should be adjourned in order that negotiations should take place with a view to agreed solutions.
Before I deal with the premises, I should like to say something about the proposed conclusion. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, said something yesterday of what I was proposing to say. When I was Leader of the House, some years ago, the then Leader of the Opposition, the late Lord
206
Alexander of Hillsborough, was constantly telling the House and trying to impress upon me the doctrine that the Labour Party were trying to establish a constitutional convention that in this House the Labour Party would never divide upon the Second Reading of any Bill brought up from the Commons. That was not a convention which I personally felt inclined to accept, but I understand it; I could sympathise with the reasons which led noble Lords in that Party to observe it. They were concerned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, candidly confessed to us yesterday, that a House composed as this one is (though it has since been greatly strengthened by the addition of Life Peerages) might take it into its head to frustrate the wishes of a newly elected Labour Government in carrying out its Election programme. That is, at any rate, what the late Lord Alexander of Hillsborough then led me to understand, and it is roughly what the noble Baroness told us yesterday.
But what do noble Lords on my left really think they will be doing if they go into the Lobby in support of the Opposition Motion this evening? What do they think the country would infer from such action? What, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, asked, do they think our customers abroad will think of it? I am aware, of course, that in form the noble Lord's Amendment is only a Motion to adjourn this debate. But surely noble Lords opposite will not deceive themselves with a sophistry of this kind. And if they do, surely the House will not be deceived. The effect of carrying the noble Lord's Motion would be exactly the same, in effect, as carrying the traditional Motion, That the Bill be read a second time this day six months hence, the conventional and immemorial method of rejecting a Bill on Second Reading. This Motion is only the old Motion for the rejection of the Second Reading writ somewhat large.
I understand the pressures which have been brought on the Front Bench opposite, but let no noble Lord opposite who goes into the Lobby to-night to vote for the Opposition Motion have any doubt in his mind about what he is doing. He is making a complete break with the traditional behaviour of his Party in this House. He is in fact, if not technically,

207
voting against the Second Reading of a Bill brought forward on behalf of a recently elected Government, which no one yet has suggested was not adequately foreshadowed in the Election programme. He is setting a precedent which, if it were followed by a Conservative Opposition in this House, would certainly give rise to what a Labour Government placed similarly to ourselves would undoubtedly describe as a constitutional crisis. The truth is that the noble Lord has adopted a device to save the unity of his Party which he would never tolerate if the positions were reversed.
However, the Motion is down, and it is therefore for me to answer it. The first point that is made in support of it is that the Bill was never adequately discussed in the other place. That is a case which can be overstated. I had the pleasure the other clay of discussing the extent of it with my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General; and probably noble Lords will agree that after Mr. Robert Carr there is probably no other Minister who can speak with such authority on this subject. He told me that, such was the prudent latitude of the Chair, although many of the clauses had not been reached—and in that sense noble Lords can make what they like of the point—there was practically no significant part of the Bill which had not been fully discussed before it reached us.
But, my Lords, the principal point I wish to make to your Lordships this afternoon is that, even on the assumption that the premise is correct, in their Motion noble Lords opposite have drawn exactly the wrong conclusion and inference from the premise. The right inference to draw from the premise of the noble Lord's Motion is surely that which was drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and by the two right reverend Prelates in their admirable speeches. The right inference is not to send the Bill back inadequately discussed or to refuse to discuss it in Parliament. The right inference is to discuss it here; not to refuse to discuss it but to discuss it adequately, good-humouredly, tolerantly and objectively.
To do credit to noble Lords opposite, although they have professed to be going to vote for their Motion, they were very
208
eager to ask that we should listen to them very carefully in Committee which, if the Motion were passed, would never take place. I can assure them that we shall do exactly as they ask. We in this House, as noble Lords have pointed out more than once, have shown ourselves very capable of discharging our functions as a second branch of the Legislature of this country. We have, and we are glad to have, eminent trade unionists among our Members; we have eminent captains of management in industry; we have Privy Counsellors on both sides; and we have had already the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, with all his experience of a Royal Commission, taking part in this very debate. What tribunal is there better than this House for carrying out a good-tempered, non-obstructive, objective and rational discussion of this Bill? My Lords, let us keep it here. Let us show ourselves worthy of the confidence that the Constitution has placed upon us.
The second point raised in the Motion is that the Bill has caused "grave division within industry and the nation". The relevance of this point must depend in some degree on the extent to which the Bill has been misrepresented or misunderstood, and on the extent to which the provisions are sound and needed to create a more orderly climate in industry. But again the Government case is that the Opposition have drawn the wrong conclusion from the premise. If there are divisions about this Bill in which forum ought it to be discussed? Ought it to be discussed as a private affair between management and unions? Is not Parliament the very forum where the people of this country can make their influence known and where reason can prevail?
The Government's case is that ours is a country fighting for its survival. After the war we were, after the United States of America, the least damaged and most wealthy nation in the West amongst the major combatants. After 25 years of current policies we are now almost the poorest, with the lowest rate of growth. We believe this position to be intolerable. Our policies in this Bill, and our other social and economic policies, are designed to end this situation; and we are entitled to ask the Opposition what is their alternative. In this case we

209
know what their alternative is. It is a policy of non-discussion, a policy of adjournment, a policy of drift. The House is invited to choose between these two policies in the Division to-night.
I can conceive of nothing more likely to harm industrial relations in this country than a continued period of uncertainty about the Bill such as the Front Bench opposite recommend. Even if it were true that there is division, I can see nothing more likely to perpetuate division than the prescription offered by the Opposition. Let us use the opportunities offered by this Bill to justify ourselves as a responsible branch of the Legislature, to enjoy the time available to us in constructive debate.
The third point raised by noble Lords opposite is that there should be a further delay. If this Bill had been proposed ten years ago there might have been much in this contention. If it had been proposed in 1957, when I became Chairman of the Conservative Party and public opinion was already beginning to urge Parliament to act, there might have been much in the contention. It was for this reason that, for better or for worse, consecutive Conservative Ministers refused to legislate between 1951 and 1964. We knew that action was necessary but, rather than impose action upon a reluctant trade union movement, we tried to believe that the trade unions themselves, or the T.U.C., would put their own house in order.
When our period of office was at an end no one was more stern in his condemnation of us than the new Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition. He twitted us on our inactivity. He appointed the Donovan Commission, but three more years elapsed before they reported. Their Report was to some extent delayed by the fact that trade union evidence was slow in coming forward. The Donovan Commission reported that legislation was necessary, and although this Bill goes further than what was recommended in 1968 it contains many of the legislative recommendations of that Commission.
Another three years have passed. During the interval the Labour Government produced In Place of Strife, which recommended that legislation was urgently necessary. This document contained much of what is controversial in
210
the present Bill, but the Bill presents it in a less arbitrary and more constitutional form. And even when they had been driven off
In Place of Strife the Labour Government sought urgently to legislate. The appalling truth is that whenever we propose action we know, and know from the speeches to which we listened yesterday, that the attitude of the Labour Party—I hope not the attitude of the trade unions, although they tell us it is the attitude of the trade unions—is that whenever we propose comprehensive legislation, whatever we propose to do we shall be left with a blank negative and not with an agreed solution. The attitude of the Party opposite towards legislation on industrial relations is that of St. Augustine in his prayer to the Almighty on the subject of chastity: "Lord, make me chaste, but not quite yet."
My Lords, what could be more naïve than to ask for an agreed solution? The time has come, after inordinate delay on the part of successive Governments, to do something and to stop talking. The time has come to look at the framework, and since the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, asked me to say what sort of framework I was hoping this Bill would produce I will conclude by telling him my answer to his question. We know that there are many strikes about unfair dismissal. This is a Bill which provides a framework for dealing with questions of unfair dismissal. We know that there are strikes about non-recognition of unions. This is a Bill which provides the mechanism for compelling the recognition of unions. We know that there are strikes about rival trade unions making rival claims of recognition. This is a Bill which deals with rival claims of recognition. There are actions like the recent case in the Court of Appeal in the case of Edwards v. SOGAT of gross injustice by the machine of trade unions against individuals.
This is a Bill which provides a complaints procedure whereby that can be remedied. There are strikes and industrial actions, we know, due to inadequate procedure agreements, and we know that this is a Bill which provides a mechanism for dealing with inadequate procedure agreements. There are strikes due to the inability of unions to induce their members to keep their bargains—

211
"unofficial strikes" Lord Williamson called them yesterday. This Bill has a mechanism to deal with them. There are strikes like those which appear in the newspapers to-day, when a whole factory is described as "a factory of fear". This is a Bill in which we decide whether we want such things, whether they are or are not to be in accordance with the law or against it. There are strikes and industrial actions which cause unemployment, which cast whole sections of the population into cold and darkness in the middle of winter; and this is a Bill that will provide some mechanism whereby perhaps this can be remedied.
My Lords, I appeal to the Party opposite to remember their principal philosophy; they are for ever "twitting" us for being the Party of the free-for-all; of the self-interest; of allowing things to rip. I beg them to consider how they can reconcile that with their Motion before the House to-day. I ask the House to decide over their heads that this is a Bill which must go forward to Second Reading for full consideration on Committee and Report.
3.21 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure the first thing your Lordships would wish me to do is to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the lively speech that he has just made. I am sure that it was intended to be helpful, although it was not exactly the kind of speech that I thought we should have at this stage in our proceedings, and it showed that we must spend a great deal of time on this side of the House in explaining what the Bill is about; in explaining what our anxieties are; in explaining what the trade union movement feels about it. Because it is absolutely clear that many of the statements made by the noble and learned Lord were totally out of context and out of relationship to current feelings. He said in one sentence—I will forgo all the others—that the essence of this Bill was that it provided privileges in exchange for regulation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Registration.
LORD DIAMOND: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon—in exchange
212
for registration. The noble Lord no doubt thinks that that is a very good thing, and that we should be very happy about it. It is very easy to create the impression of providing privileges by demoting people in the eyes of the law, by withdrawing rights which they have enjoyed for a century, and then saying to them, "But we will restore those rights if you will do certain actions under which your freedom may be further curtailed." The noble and learned Lord describes to this House as a privilege something which the unions have enjoyed year in and year out as a matter of right, as a matter of custom, as a matter practice. They are now to be told that that right will, under a gracious Government, be continued, so long as they submit to registration, under which all sorts of things may happen to them, including the determination of what they have previously freely determined of their own by an outside body, and without which they may be pushed into difficulties, penalties and damages of a kind which, until this Bill was published, no trade unionist had ever contemplated.
So I am bound to say to the noble and learned Lord, with the respect which everyone of us has for he who, for the time being sits on the Woolsack—
LORD CONESFORD: He?
LORD DIAMOND: For he who for the time being, sits on the Woolsack—
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, surely the noble Lord means, "for him"?
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Lord: if he will join me afterwards in looking at the construction I think he will see that both are available. But, even having regard to that respect which we bear the noble and learned Lord, everything he said on the merits of the Bill failed utterly because he was working on a hypothesis which we do not for one moment accept.
As to the attack on what we are proposing as a procedural matter, I did not think it was worth spending so much time of such an important occasion on a purely procedural argument. What we are attempting—and my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition will make this absolutely clear when he comes to wind

213
up—is to reconcile our duty of explaining to your Lordships why it is that such a large section of the nation feels, as it does, hostile to this Bill and that a great injustice is about to be perpetrated. While we feel that deeply, honestly and sincerely, we must not, because of the traditions of democracy which we hold even more important than our feelings on this one Bill, attempt to obstruct the Second Reading of a Bill which has received a Second Reading in another place, and which has some justification—not complete—in that it was mentioned during the course of a General Election in which the Conservatives gained power. In those circumstances, we feel that such a Bill should have its Second Reading in this House. We haw tried very hard to reconcile those two duties and we feel that we have succeeded.
We have put forward a Motion which, if it were accepted, would not be inconsistent with the Motion for Second Reading yet would be consistent with an attempt which we are still making, and shall continue to make throughout the proceedings on this Bill, to see that employers, employees and the Government are brought closer together in understanding one another's problems, and are not driven apart by anxieties and by a legalistic code which can do nothing but frighten—and frighten certainly the trade unions. I am bound to say to my noble friend who asked the question during the course of Question Time about the position of Law Lords, that I do not imagine that the speech to which we have just listened has entirely satisfied him that trade union attitudes would be fully understood by courts which included those who had the good fortune to have the same distinguished training and ability as the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, supposing that he, for example, were the relevant chairman or judge in such a court.
So I return to what is a much more agreeable task to me, to outline the very wide area of agreement which exists, and which has been demonstrated by all the speeches to which I was privileged to listen yesterday, and see whether we cannot draw on a wide area of agreement to secure a path forward that would be helpful in what is undoubtedly a most. difficult situation. There is agreement
214
about the special responsibility resting on this House—I need not to make that case again. There is agreement that certain areas of the Bill will need reconsideration. Not one large employer—although speaking with knowledge of employment on a large scale—who spoke yesterday failed to draw the attention of the Government to the difficulties attaching to the Government's present outlook with regard to closed shop provisions. There is without doubt agreement about the damaging effect of strikes, but I do not think sufficient has been said about the damaging effect, in the first place, and in the most painful way, on the strikers and their families. Those are the first to suffer. But the effect is also damaging for the economy; damaging for the employer; damaging for our exports; damaging in a way which has never been fully calculated, and which I believe, if it were, would be shown to be heavier than any one of us has contemplated.
There is agreement on the strikes statistics; namely, that unofficial strikes are worsening but that the general position hare is better than in most other countries, and certainly a great deal better than in the United States of America, from which the proposals in this Bill are borrowed. There is agreement, too, I am glad to say, on what I hope I may call shortly the Donovan diagnosis—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, will understand that I am referring not to him personally but to the Royal Commission which he chaired with such brilliance and about which he spoke with such massively persuasive arguments yesterday.
That diagnosis was saying, shortly, that we need to develop comprehensive collective bargaining systems at local, level, because that is where the trouble has grown and is growing. There we have to help, and in order to develop these bargaining systems of a comprehensive and collective nature we need to strengthen trade union membership—because only with strong trade union membership can collective bargaining be both collective and effective. So we have now to try to see how we can proceed and how we can meet those agreed needs. But we come to the first difficulty—because, of course, every step forward should, according to that analysis and

215
the evidence produced, be consistent with an endeavour, an intention, to strengthen trade unions.
The first thing we notice in the Bill is that for the first time there has been elevated into a right or a freedom the right not to join a trade union, the freedom from being a member of a trade union. How can such an attitude as gives statutory effect to that right be other than consistent with an attitude of desiring to undermine the trade unions? To say that a man has a right to belong to a trade union, or to say that a man has a right to vote, is something worth saying. But to say that he has a right not to belong to a trade union, or that he has a right not to vote, is to elevate that principle into something which it does not at all justify. That has been something which has given anxiety and given suspicion of the Conservative Government, who do not start off in the very best position to demonstrate that they are the all-time friend of trade unionists. It has given anxiety and given belief that an underlying purpose of the Bill is to undermine trade union activity, trade union strength, instead of the reverse.
I listened very carefully to the speeches which were made in the hope that I should be proved to be wrong. But, my Lords, I was not wrong. Many of your Lordships made most authoritative and powerful speeches yesterday, but those which were made by Peers who were employers on a very large scale all referred in one form or another to the need to curb the power of the unions, to restore the balance of power, to put an end to bullying. A number of phrases of that kind came in time and time again: I could refer to them and mention names, if it were thought necessary. That confirms, surely, that employers who are giving their approval to this Bill take the view that the balance of power has been upset in favour of the unions and that it should now be restored, and that one of the functions of the Bill therefore is to diminish the power of the unions.
The case has never been argued that that is so. If it had been argued one might be able to deal with the argument. But it has never been argued. All that has been said is that it is necessary to increase the strength of the unions. The Government have said, and the noble
216
Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who opened our debate yesterday said, that they accepted the Donovan analysis. So I am bound to say that the conclusion to which I come, to which my noble friends come, and certainly to which the whole of the trade union movement has come, is that this Bill is framed in such a way as to diminish the power of the unions; to undermine their capacity to build for themselves a fair place in the sun; and that the passage of the Bill would undoubtedly see in the course of time the erosion of the trade union movement and its inability to carry out local collective bargaining arrangements of a kind that are essential to stem the advance of the increase in local strikes, which is our difficulty and which we are all concerned to reduce.
There are many other means, as opposed to ends, which are quite unworkable and irrelevant in this Bill. I will mention only a few. The first is the reliance on enforceability. It hardly needs me to repeat what has been so well said: that in the field of human relations of the particularly sensitive kind which exist where a man spends more of his hours of life working than in any other activity (that is to say, in his occupation), where his actions are determined by the employer; where his ability to work and earn a living is determined by his employer; where his ability to feel a member of society is determined by his employer; where his own powers are one, and one only, namely, the right to sell his labour—in an area of that kind, to introduce the element of enforceability is to go against common sense. One can overcome one's problems in this field only by co-operation of the highest kind; and that everybody recognises. Therefore the sooner one gets away from enforceability, the sooner one will be able to return to co-operation. And co-operation is essential, my Lords, if anything is going to be achieved.
Those of us who have had the problem of dealing with activities which are not strikes but are outbursts of lack of cooperation (let us call them) know how frightfully difficult, impossibly difficult, they are to deal with, and maybe a good deal worse than a straightforward strike based on some contention which can be argued. The point I am making is that we should not easily slip into the view

217
that if we can by some method block up the outlet of feeling, the safety-valve, which some strikes represent, and instead be compelled to suffer this kind of non-co-operative attitude, we shall be any the better for it. The difficulties will be the greater, not the less.
The next factor that makes this Bill seem to us both unworkable and irrelevant is the approximately 179 (so I gather from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan) new misdemeanours which attract heavy fines and which are to be found for the first time in this Bill—and when f say "for the first time", I mean that they were not to be found in the document which the Conservative Party put out before the Bill was published. These are new proposals, which have never been discussed before, and are against a background which requires maximum co-operation. These again are irrelevant, because of course they depend largely on employers' taking action to secure them, and everybody here who is an employer knows that to take this kind of action would only mean that at the end of the day you would be worse off than you were at the start. The purpose is to try to improve industrial relations, and this kind of action is bound to make them a good deal worse.
One way in which the Government think it is possible to escape from one's difficulties is to borrow from experience in the United States of America, as has been done in this Bill, and to have the various methods which they have adopted incorporated into a British Statute. I wonder whether the attention of your Lordships has been sufficiently drawn to the difficulties which are being experienced in the United States. Your Lordships know that their experience of strikes is far worse, in the sense that they have a far greater number of days lost through strikes per 1,000 employees than we do. It is a far worse figure. The difference is merely that the strike is prepared for, it is official, it is gone into fully and is to be relied on. One noble Lord opposite was talking to us yesterday about the difficulty of making estimates and how one's estimates all go awry when there are strikes; but so much is this so when you estimate for capital investment in the United States that now you have to take account not only of the use to which the plant will be put but
218
also of the use to which the plant will not be put. You have to take account of depreciation and amortisation during the period when the company will be inactive during a two-months or three-months strike. And that is the method which the Government are proposing to us in order that we may get out of our difficulties!
But the situation is really more amusing than that, because while we are borrowing from them in an attempt to overcome our problems, which are totally differently based and originate in a totally different way, they are having such troubles with strikes in certain areas, mainly the local authority areas, that they are sending teams over here to find out from us how we manage so well. As your Lordships know, they have had a particularly unfortunate experience of a strike in New York, a strike of a kind which is illegal, and so of course the president of the union concerned was put in gaol. As in the Betteshanger colliery case, which is referred to in the Donovan Report and which I am sure your Lordships will have read with amusement and benefit, it was found that once you have put the only man who could settle the strike in gaol you have to move to gaol in order to negotiate the settlement of the strike. When you have done that, you are then in the position that the strikers will return to work only if the official concerned is released from gaol. Of course nothing is easier than getting a man into gaol: the problem is getting him out of it.
This particular president of a very busy American trade union, having spent his life being subject to pressures of every kind, being criticised by those behind him and those in front of him for either going too far or not going far enough, criticised by the public and by his membership, decided that at last he had found the ideal holiday. Nothing could be nicer than to stay in gaol, having his needs cared for and not being subject to these pressures. So he said that he was very sorry, but for the first time he was having a break and that he proposed to stay in gaol. I do not know how much more ridiculous you can get, but the point I am making is that the kind of legal framework that the noble Lord who has just preceded me has recommended to us is something that will not appeal, will cause anxiety, will

219
frighten people off solid and constructive labour relations and negotiations, and will land us in enormous trouble.
So I come, as the noble and learned Lord did, to the new Motion that is before us, and I should have thought that there was not much difficulty in satisfying your Lordships as to the wisdom of the course we are proposing. Surely it is no longer doubted that the proceedings in another place were such as not to allow adequate discussion of new statutory provisons of a kind which are totally unknown to our law. Surely it is not difficult to demonstrate that there is grave division in industry and in the nation. Your Lordships must accept that the whole of the trade union movement, from top to bottom, is utterly opposed to this Bill. It is not always easy to unite trade union membership, but that is the situation, and it is evidenced, as your Lordships will have seen, by the recent rallies and gatherings. I refer particularly to the Trafalgar Square rally, when there were something like 120,000 to 150,000 people who came from all over the country to demonstrate their opposition to the Bill and there was not one incident of any kind. Every single member was a serious member who had come to show his opposition to the Bill, and not to create rowdyism or trouble.
There can be no doubt either of the divisions in the other areas. There can be no doubt as to where the Labour Party stand on this Bill; we are united similarly behind the trade union movement. Unfortunately there is division among the Liberal Party, and that is a matter which the Government should take very seriously into account. I gather that the Liberal Party, who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill in another place and then were satisfied on examination that it was not a Bill to which they could give their support on Third Reading, and so voted against its Third Reading, have now signified, certainly through one spokesman yesterday, their approval of the Second Reading. At all events, we hope to be able to demonstrate to them during the course of the Bill that their colleagues in another place were, after all, right and that the Bill should not go further than that unless it is completely altered.
220
The way forward is a simple one. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack suggested that we need a comprehensive code. I think he was referring to a code of law: what we need is a comprehensive code of practice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, what I said was—and I hope the noble Lord will take it in—that I agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, when he said that that was what we needed.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, of course the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, said that that was what we needed, and the noble and learned Lord. Lord Donovan, to whom I listened with the same care as did the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, then went on to say that the question we have to ask ourselves is "Is this the right Bill?" Those who had the pleasure of listening to what he said and then of reading the speech in Hansard can have no doubt of the conclusion that he reached as to the major part of this Bill.
So I return to what I was earlier saying: that the way forward is clear. It is by means of a code of practice. If only the Government would listen to this plea! It has been made on all sides of the House; it has been made outside the House, time and time again. The kernel of this matter is a code of practice, not a set of legal rules; a code of practice to assist those who do not know how they can best behave in order to achieve their common interests. A code of practice should be prepared as a result of consultation between the two sides of industry, with the Government playing their full part and contributing out of their great knowledge of these matters. If the code of practice were prepared first, and then put before the community and before Parliament, we could then see whether it was necessary at the fringes, or in any respect at all, to provide for reserve powers—and I literally mean reserve powers, powers which would have to be separately enacted by Parliament, to protect the code of practice at the fringes.
I myself think that it would be possible, in the present state of deep consideration which is taking place throughout the country, for progress to be made

221
in that way. It is not possible for progress to be made on the present plans of the Government. This is merely hammering a way through difficulties which do not yield to hammering but only to careful handling and deep understanding. There is a willingness to co-operate lurking below the surface, but it will not show itself while unions and their members have this anxiety and fear that they are going to be diminished in their power; that the rights they have enjoyed and fought for over the centuries are going to be taken away from them, and that they are going to be subject to interference and control by those who have no more understanding of their real needs than, with respect, the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, to whose speech we listened earlier on.
3.53 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, if I may be allowed to say so, my attitude to the law in these matters will not differ substantially from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, nor indeed my ideas about the code of practice very much from the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has just made; and I hasten to say that we came to our conclusions, as I hope my speech will show, quite independently.
"For the purpose of promoting good industrial relations". So reads Clause 1 of the Bill; and that is an aim with which all of us, surely, would wish to associate ourselves. That something needs to be done to improve industrial relations is surely beyond argument. It was recognised by the last Government, as well as the present one; it was recognised by the electorate, and ii is evident to all of us, not so much in the fact of strikes themselves as in the rate of increase of working days lost per annum, as well as in those miserable shambles that go by the name of settlements.
What would we give for industrial peace? The phrase recalls, if I may be allowed to say so, a phrase in our Second Lesson at Evensong on Sunday, which included, as some of your Lordships will know, that poignant lamentation over Jerusalem:
"If thou hadst known, even thou … the things which belong unto thy peace!"
I do not say that as a professional aside, still less as a polite acknowledgement of this particular week in which our debate
222
is occurring; rather to draw attention to the very ambiguity of the word "peace", not only in the religious context, but which is transferred to the industrial Context.
Peace can so often be a negative concept, mere lack of disharmony, all quiet, rather than positive harmony, creative partnership and personal and social fulfilment. And I ask myself—do not your Lordships ask yourselves too?—what kind of peace is this which the Bill envisages? For my own part, I think it is a middle manager's idea of peace—for Heaven's sake, all quiet in the shop. "Do not encourage them to think", it was said to a graduate engineer, "That will badly disturb them. Keep quiet". This Bill's view of industrial relations, it seems to me, is almost as shallow as that.
My main difficulty with the Bill is that it has, surely, the wrong title. In the light of what it contains, it is surely an utterly misleading title. With respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it is not an Industrial Relations Bill; it is rather an Industrial Disputes (Regulation of Practices) Bill. It is legislation against trouble; it is not legislation for partnership. And the view of industrial relations which it takes is of the narrowest, as narrow as the worst middle manager in the worst shop. It seeks, rightly enough for its purpose, to establish rules for what one might call a "just war" between workers and management—not least, let it be granted, in the light of wrecking tactics by irregulars which none of us wish to see—and it seeks to provide, by seeking at certain points to curtail the power of the workers and the trade unions, for an alignment of forces during intervening periods of what we might call an uneasy peace.
It seems to me that this entirely accords with the exposition of the Bill given to us yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. It would, he hoped, provide orderly—and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack used the same adjective to-day—instead of disorderly industrial relations. I might say, in my metaphor, a plan of campaign rather than guerrilla warfare. But while order is certainly preferable to anarchy and chaos and campaigns of guerrilla warfare, in the sense in which you know when they begin and when they end, it is at most but the threshold to human

223
relations, whether in industry or society at large. That is my first point. The Bill in its title makes exaggerated claims and encourages what so far—a point I shall return to presently—are ill-founded expectations.
The Government may say that it is I who am exaggerating—I hope I have the grammar of that sentence clear. The Bill, as we have heard so often, is but the framework in which industrial relations can develop. It was said many times in the debate yesterday. But this brings me directly to my second point. The fundamental incoherence of the Bill, as it stands at present, is that as a Bill for settling industrial disputes, as a Bill for deploying forces on the battlefield, it is not only perpetuating but exacerbating attitudes and conditions which, by alienating the workers, make creative harmonious relations all the more difficult. By trying to do the one, it only succeeds in failing to do the other.
The social attitudes and the concept of industrial relations which this Bill enshrines are surely hopelessly out of date. I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would agree with me when I say that, as a way to deal with industrial troubles, the Bill would certainly have been wise and just, and even radical, 150 years ago. What happened 150 years ago? I can take it to 160 years ago, and to my own County of Durham.
"The coal owners, having a reason for desiring the change which they had arbitrarily declared should be made, refused to listen to the men, and the latter accordingly struck after the binding day. The delegates from the different collieries held frequent meetings, both in the Counties of Northumberland and Durham, for the purpose of keeping the men united, but they were hunted about from place to place by the owners and magistrates, assisted by the military, and committed to prison in such large numbers, till the prisons would hold no more."
What happened then?
"To such an extent was the old Gaol and House of Correction at Durham filled, that, for fear of infection"—
the humanitarian touch!—
"several were removed to the stables and the stable yards"—
of whom?—
"of the Bishop of Durham, where they were guarded by the Durham Volunteers, and special constables, and afterwards by the Royal Car
224
marthenshire Militia. Fresh seizures continued to be made, day by day, until finally the number imprisoned in the Bishop's stables amounted to nearly 300."
The account continues:
"And, no doubt, the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Durham slept a peaceful sleep in the calm consciousness of having served the cause of law and order by yielding up his stables for a prison-house."
It was said yesterday that we ought to advance and forget the dismal days of the past. Of course we should. But my particular difficulty is that in terms of the attitudes which this Bill fosters and expresses, it takes us but a terribly few steps forward from ideas circulating in 1810. It would have been a magnificent Bill in 1820, but it is 1971 by this time. We shall not begin to understand the trade union reaction and that of my noble friends Lord Blyton, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, Lord Slater, and others, until we have realised how very little forward the thinking, the attitudes embedded in this Bill, have brought us.
One of my chaplains, who moves very freely in the industrial world between management and workers alike, said to me only last week,
"Workpeople do not feel that the law is their friend. When they also see a coalition of the Conservative Party, the Government, the managers and the law, they are terrified."
That may be utterly irrational, and those people who say that may be utterly wrong, but if we are working, and are determined to work, for better relations within industry, it is a fact, a very serious fact and a very reliable fact which has to be reckoned with.
My question is: What does this Bill do to remove those workpeople's suspicions? Well founded or not, they are there as facts. The thought behind this Bill, broadly speaking, I think is twofold, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, expressed it, if I may say so, so well yesterday. The first idea is that law and order should occur not only as the basis—which of course we should all agree with—but as also the highest specification of human relationships in the field of industry. And secondly in particular, the right of the individual needs to be balanced with the necessary limitation of belonging to a community. That is all very true, especially if the first idea is

225
stopped half way in the sentence. But, like very much else that is true, it is very inadequate. It implies as superficial a view of the individual as it does of the community in which he is set. It reminds us very much of the polarisation between the Liberal 18th century sturdy individual and the Marxist doctrine of the solidarity of the community. We need to do something to integrate both.
Take as an example from the Bill itself this matter of the closed shop. As an expression of the right of the individual, what is sometimes called "personal freedom", the Bill says, "Let a man decide himself whether to belong or not to belong to a trade union". So exit the closed shop. But then, when we face the practicalities of the situation, what goes on in those buildings between people, management and workers alike, confronted with the actual facts of the industrial community, it has to be granted that something like a closed shop is wanted if reliable industrial negotiations, as representative discussions, are to take place. And the worker, who we started by saying must not be coerced into joining a trade union, finds himself coerced into paying contributions to something or other—there is a variety of possibilities in the Bill. In short, the realities of the industrial situation, the sheer practical need for employers and employed to get together in some kind of representative partnership, break through the superficial talk about freedom and the rights of the individual.
When I recently discussed this Bill with a group of employers in the North East—and, if I might guess, but it is only a guess as I do not know, they belong to the Party representing the Government to-day—I found not a single one of them (and over a dozen were there, from many different sections of industry) liked those agency shops. On both sides of your Lordships' House the merits and the need of the closed shop were abundantly recognised yesterday. So far as its philosophy goes, the Bill surely starts with all the simple principles, and when faced with the practical realities of the working situation beats a retreat covered by a smoke screen of intricate legal provisions from which every manager, as they told me in that meeting, will pray to be spared. If I understood them
226
aright, the smaller the firm the harder he will pray.
No one can disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and others in their contention that the law has a place—of course it has—in industrial relations. All institutions must have a framework of law. Speaking from inside an institution which is surrounded by the most luxuriant legal plantations, in terms of yesterday's metaphors I am not sure whether I call it a "legal paradise", a "veritable garden of Eden", or not; I certainly know, as my colleagues on these Benches know, that it has extremely luxuriant vegetation. The constant pruning and replanting gives continuous satisfaction and, incidentally, an honest living to a good many people, not all of whom are lawyers. That being so, here is an institution with enough law about it to satisfy anybody.
I then ask myself: Do I know of any cases where the law has improved relationships? The rather surprising answer that I gave myself was, Yes. But only in the sense that it has parted people who were acrimonious when they were together; and it has also got rid of objects which everybody disliked. In other words, law is at its best in separating parties, in defining positions; not in reconciling and not in harmonising. I could not agree more with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he connected law and original sin. But then I asked myself: Do I know of cases where the law by itself has led to creative harmony, reconciliation and development? The answer was: No, indeed. No healthy, progressive institution thinks of its life entirely in terms of its legal skeleton, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack does not think like that either.
This takes me back to my third point, to the point where I am close to the position of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond; back to the qualification I made a little while ago. It seems to me that the most important clause of the whole 160 is Clause 2, and I take up the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Rochester, yesterday, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself to-day, and by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, a short while ago. If we want to improve industrial relations it is not law, but the

227
code of practice freely agreed by managements and workers together, which should be definitive and the other provisions of the Bill should be derivative.
It is not the Bill which provides the framework. The framework should be in the code of practice. Procedures for disputes and for the regulation of unfair practices for which, this Bill amply provides, should be secondary to the climate which the code of practice defines. Far more important for industrial relations, in their broadest sense, than most of the provisions in the Bill is the code of practice which we are promised. To talk of this Bill being the framework is not only to put the cart before the horse; it is to forget that the horse is not, so far as I am aware, yet in the stable. And yet without this horse there will be no progress whatever in industrial relations, if we take that phrase in its fullest and proper sense.
What is required is a new framework of law for all industrial and commercial enterprises, and not merely what might called new Queensberry Rules. We want a new framework of company law—if I may take the idea that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor partly touched on, partly suggested, at least to me—which could encourage not the tactics and strategy of a battlefield, but responsible partnership between all those who combine in industry for the welfare of the nation. If this comes anywhere in this Bill it seems to me, as I have said, to be found only in the mandatory code of practice, and not in the rules for fighting a just war.
May I illustrate, to show that it is not an empty suggestion that I am making to your Lordships' House? I should hope, for instance, that such a code of practice might include a legal right of shop stewards to have day release, industrial relations training—an idea which I, think was first suggested some nine years ago. It would contain provision for many more joint management-union training schemes. It would contain a vast improvement in the industrial relations training for graduate managers, who normally have only technical qualifications. It would provide a legal right for every worker to have access to joint consultative machinery. It would include a
228
legal right for every worker not only to be given information about his company—and this should not he hedged around with all the qualifications in the present Bill—but, especially, about the company's financial position and future problems. If balance sheets are too hard to understand now, I should hope they would be easier in 20 years' time. Furthermore, the worker should hear all this directly from his manager and in his natural work group, with opportunities for discussion. Such a code of practice might include the emergence of alternative strike methods and, perhaps, the creation of local groups of experienced conciliators or arbitrators, who could be on the scene quickly in any dispute before serious issues emerged. Those are but suggestions as to what a code of practice might contain, and for me the fact that this Bill contains a reference to a code of practice is its saving clause.
But here, with that independency which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn mentioned yesterday, I would make an earnest plea. As your Lordships will know, this Bill has a miserable record of consultation. Employers, as much as trade unionists, have on different occasions poured scorn, in my hearing, on that so-clalled Consultative Document, which was mentioned yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, dated October 5 and asking for comments by the end of October. Views received up to November 13, we were told, could hardly be considered because of the exigencies of the Parliamentary timetable. My Lords, what a desperate hurry after 150 years! But what would do most of all to create a new atmosphere would be to have this code of practice, mandatory on employers and workers alike, published before a final decision has to be made on the Bill.
Further, in an area as significant as this is to every man, woman and child in the country—this is not my idea; it is the idea of those employers who met with me the other night—could we not have at least as much publicity given to this area as was given to decimalisation? If the Government want to begin, as I believe they do, to create a real partnership in industry, if they wish to initiate a creative harmony, which is the true base of what we want to see in industrial relations, could they make some

229
gesture, such as publishing the code at an early date with great publicity given to it, simply to show how seriously they are taking—not so much industrial relations, perhaps, as human relations over the whole field of our industrial life? Could there not be initiated at once genuine consultation—not consultation with that travesty of a meaning attached to the Document which I have already mentioned, but genuine consultation with trade unions and management, meeting together to elucidate and comment on a code of practice, under some chairman who commanded all-round support? Here I suggest the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke of not waiting for agreement I quite agree that agreement might not eventually come from such a meeting. But all we can say is that there is no virtue whatever in forced agreement; indeed, it is a contradiction in terms. Is it ever too late, at least in Government, to talk, and to make sure people talk together, for the code of practice to be enunciated? When we had such a code, we could then eventually pass this Bill, as amended, as part of a wider mandatory framework to improve industrial relations generally. That would be, it seems to me, to put first things first. And it is no fond, fantastic hope, my Lords. I am thinking, for instance, of the way in which the procedure for dealing with demarcation disputes was agreed between both sides of the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry in 1969 as one evident way of industrial partnership. There, talking eventually succeeded.
If I thought that the code of practice was to be some entirely ineffective document—and I am not encouraged, I confess, by what is said in the Bill about sharing information; if I thought the code of practice was to combine shallow thinking and practical ineffectiveness, I should want to vote against the Bill on Second Reading. My reasons, indeed, would be not unlike those which led Mr. Harold Macmillan, from a knowledge of the North-East, to say what he did in 1927 in the debate in another place on the Trade Disputes Bill. What did he say? He said that it was:
"… not that the intention of the Bill is wrong …"—
230
not at all, I interpose to comment—
"but that the inevitable psychological effect upon the delicate situation of our industrial fabric in the particular circumstances of the moment is likely to be bad, and is likely to be dangerous to the well-being of the community''.
That was Mr. Macmillan speaking on the Trade Disputes Bill in 1927. What we can do in this House is to ensure, if we can—and surely all of us wish it—that this Bill brings well-being and not disaster; for I am not at all sure that the parallel with 1927 is not rather closer than we care to admit.
Like many other noble Lords on both sides—and Cross-Benchers as well—one wants, in a situation as complex and intricate, and, indeed, bedevilled as this, to be positive and helpful. Because I am confident that some kind of Bill is needed; because I am confident that noble Lords on all sides of the House will amend the Bill in relation, for example, to its closed shop and agency shop clauses, I shall not support what I understand from the Press may be the suggestions of my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. Yet—and I say this in honesty; it is not a sophistry—if it would encourage the Government to produce a code of practice before the Bill becomes law I should certainly want to support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton; and the fact that this Motion has originated from the Opposisition will not, I hope, mean that ipso facto it is dismissed as political chicanery. I do not myself, as a novice in this place, see it as excluding a Second Reading. If it does, the sooner we alter our procedures the better. But also if it does, and we cannot vote on it in order to let the Second Reading go through, if there is that complex procedural jungle, I hope that this suggestion about a code of practice before finally the Bill is agreed will, nevertheless, somehow be carried out.
It seems to me, my Lords, that here we have an opportunity, after all these many years, to begin to repair the breaches, to heal wounds which, unless they are healed, will make our industrial malaise a terminal illness. Out of the strife in Parliament and the country, possibly I see, however dimly, a new way forward—not least from the tone and tenor of yesterday's debate. May

231
I, I hope not presumptuously, say to the Government: Do keep your determination; do indeed do something about it. But do, please, broaden your views. Do pay careful heed to all those on whom industrial relations have got to depend, and do not think of the opposition of the trade unions as cussedness. Let us now make one more effort, in terms of consultation on the code of practice, in terms of the timing of the code of practice, after the things which belong to our industrial peace: peace in the sense of creative partnership succeeding in making progress through all the inevitable tensions of industrial life because of the trust—the trust which each section of industry may then have, and have confidently, in one another.
4.26 p.m.
LORD THORNEYCROFT: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. If I may say so to him, I find myself in slightly more agreement with the speeches delivered yesterday by the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Southwark and the Bishop of Blackburn, but I think this difference indicates only that on complicated subjects of this kind honourable men may reasonably hold different opinions. The Bishop of Durham was, as I understand from his speech, following some tradition in the case of Bishops of Durham in intervening in industrial matters, though in this case on a slightly different slant. The proposal that he put forward, that we should rely solely upon a mandatory code of practice, though in a sense attractive would, I think, require a code of practice of immense detail and a legal application of incredible complexity. I cannot believe that such a proposal would be very acceptable to anybody in industry, whether in management or in the case of the trade unions. Nevertheless, there is one thing upon which I did agree with him; that is, that in the last resort it is in the knowledge of humanity rather than in the administration of law that the future wellbeing of industrial relations is likely to rest—and that rather brings me to what I wanted to say in opening from this side of the House.
In a debate on industrial relations, I think it is perhaps worth remembering what is right with the trade unions as
232
well as what is wrong. What is, after all, right with the trade unions is that the vast majority of agreements are in fact honoured, and honoured meticulously, by those who enter into them. The vast majority of disputes—and they happen every day on the shop floor of every factory in this country—are in fact settled on the spot. The vast majority of potential strikes are in fact avoided; and if I may say something which I hope will counteract the worst fears of those who seem to take rather a gloomy view of the future of the trade unions under this Bill, I do not believe that a provision that men need not join a union will in any material way affect the membership of trade unions. They are too deeply established in this country, too widely accepted and respected, their value too deeply accepted really to have their membership affected in that way. So, as we approach any discussion—and what I have to say will be very brief—about the general principles of this Bill, that is the first factor I would have in mind: that a great deal is very right with the unions.
As to what is wrong, if I may, I will take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. He expressed a view about some industrialists who had spoken from this side of the House. I am an industrialist. The firm with which I am associated also employs thousands of men and women. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that an industrialist wants strong trade unions and not weak ones. The fear that is in people's minds to-day is not that the trade union movement is too strong; the fear is that in some quarters it is too weak; that power has been slipping from the hands of those who lead the unions; that power is somehow slipping away even from the rank and file; and that it is held in some sort of indeterminate middle position with nobody really in control. That is the fear to-day.
As I look to the other side of the House during this debate, I have the privilege of seeing men whom I would count among my friends who were strong leaders of strong trade unions and who played an enormous part in the success of the industries of which they were a part. It is men such as they and unions such as that that in this country we want to devise and make possible to

233
grow and to thrive. That is the second factor that I would have in mind. The third factor is that, because of those, as we discuss this Bill (as no doubt we shall, on Committee stage) I think we want to look extremely carefully to see that in trying to improve situations we do not erode the good in the unions. I think that we ought to listen with great care to all the arguments that have to be advanced in matters of this kind and in any way—listening calmly and quietly, because we debate calmly and quietly in this House, to the arguments of men experienced in various walks of life in this field—to see whether we can improve the Bill even beyond where it is to-day.
My Lords, those are the opening factors. I have three arguments only and I will deal with them shortly. They are three arguments which have been, as it were, addressed to us about the Bill. At least I think they have been; though it is sometimes a little difficult to know precisely what the argument is. There is the argument—I think it has been used in this House—that we really ought not to have a Bill; that somehow or another there is nothing really wrong, or at any rate nothing so wrong that by a little more discussion it could not be put right so that in some way or another our difficulties would be removed. Of course, if there is really nothing wrong, then it is true to say that there is no need for a Bill and I suppose that we could all vote happily on the procedural device put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
I am not sure that that was the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, in opening. He felt—I may be wrong—that a Bill was necessary. He had some criticisms to make about it, but he felt that some legislation was necessary on this subject. I am bound to say that I think that that must surely by now be accepted. It was, after all, the view of the previous Government—and decisions of that kind are not come to lightly. You do not put up a Bill on industrial relations—certainly not a Labour Government—without the deepest thought. There was the White Paper,In Place of Strife. Anyone who knows what goes on inside a Cabinet—the arguments, the discussions, the drafts that are discussed—knows that before the
234
Labour Party came out with legislation on that subject they must have been satisfied beyond peradventure that it was essential in the interests of the country that we should go into legislation on this matter. It was certainly their view then. And it was the view of the electorate; because, whatever else can be said, this was an issue fairly and squarely put before the electorate. It was the view of the Conservative Party in Opposition; it is the view of a Conservative Government to-day. And why? I think the reason why was put by Mr. Wilson when he was Prime Minister. He put it absolutely plainly: that no responsible Prime Minister could go forward without taking the responsibility of introducing legislation in this field.
There are differences of view as to the nature of the clauses and the methods that can be adopted; and these were argued very lucidly, if I may be permitted to say so, in a speech of great interest and importance by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, yesterday. He took the case of the Donovan Report as one possible line; or the White Paper, Fair Deal at Work; or Mrs. Castle's Bill. He compared them all. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with comparing one with another. There are differences about the closed shop, about enforcement; whether it should be through the employers or through the Secretary of State. These are all in the nature of points that can be debated on Committee rather than points that really go to the root of a Second Reading debate.
If one may take up the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, yesterday, she suggested that we might have introduced a Bill really in the form of her own Government's, In Place of Strife, pruned a little here and there to suit her, and all would have been well. If I may say so, I think that that is an illusion. A Bill introduced by a Labour Government on those lines was torn to pieces by the trade unions, with such effect that it had to be abandoned by a Labour Government. The idea that it would suddenly become possible because it was introduced by the Tories is an illusion. I assure the House that there is no Bill which can be introduced in this field which is not going to come in for a great deal of criticism—and there is no harm in that; because great

235
issues ought to be criticised in debate, ought to be threshed out, ought to be discussed in this House and in other places.
The second argument, as I understand it, is that the Bill is unworkable. It is certainly complex and I can see arguments in favour of this in the form in which responsibility for action is placed upon the employers. Speaking for a moment as an employer, I would say that the last thing that employers want to do is to get at cross purposes with the trade unions. They have to live with them. If everybody has gone out to work some unfair practice or has come out on some political strike, I do not imagine that the employer on the first occasion will do much about that—or even on the second occasion. But I think that there will come a moment when he might wish to do something about it under some legislative Bill. But no one would really pretend that enormous, sweeping changes are suddenly going to take place, just because an Industrial Relations Bill has been introduced. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, I quite agreed with that part of his speech. But, as I understand it, it has never been part of the case of anybody who has argued for the Bill that the mere passage of the Bill is going to have a sort of revolutionary effect and that everything afterwards is going to be sweetness and light.
Whether the Bill is workable will not really depend on what we say in this House; it will depend on public opinion. This Bill would be unworkable, utterly unworkable, if it had not a broad basis of public opinion behind it, and if, moreover, there were not many trade unionists who, deep in their hearts, were supporting it. It will work, my Lords, because there is a good deal of opinion on its side. It will work because trade unionists, while they may think—quite rightly—that some want protection against managers (some, too, want protection against unions) realise that every man in this life, in every organisation in which he works and lives, likes to know the rules under which he is working and living. He likes to know what is fair and what is not fair. So far as possible, he likes to have it down in black and white. The Bill will work
236
because quite a number of trade union leaders are tired of seeing power slip from their grasp into hands of people far less worthy to control the interests of their members. Noble Lords on the other side of the House know this as well as I do. And they know how difficult it would be for union leaders to say so, at any rate in terms quite as explicit as those I am using now.
The third and the last argument with which I wish to deal is that the unions do not want it. I do not think that that is a very good case. The early Kings of England did not want it very much when constitutional rule and practice was first being imposed upon them. The Barons of England disliked very much the attempts of Parliament to curtail their various operations. At one time the landlords fought a long rearguard action against the curtailment of their power. The secret ballot was once very much attacked in the political field in this country. It was said that it would lead to all sorts of troubles. The most ingenious devices and arguments were put forward, not very different from the ingenious arguments advanced by trade unionists to-day about the secret ballot. But, my Lords, a hundred years later, looking back there may be some who think it was the wish of the Tory landlords to know which way the serfs were voting which was the real reason for the attack on the secret ballot. We want to be a little careful how we frame these arguments against secret ballots. They have a certain element of democracy in them which is not altogether to be denied.
Finally, my Lords, I would say that in any event these arguments tend to be a little contradictory. The Bill really cannot be so complex as to be unworkable on the one hand or so powerful as seriously to damage the trade union movement on the other. There are two points which are not in the Bill. I would mention them very briefly, though I realise that it may be difficult to introduce anything else now. Nevertheless, I think they are points which are just worthy of being made. One relates to ballots. If we are to have ballots, for heaven's sake! let us lay down the basis on which they are set up. The responsibility ought to be placed fairly and squarely on employers. They should be compelled to make the necessary arrangements for providing the space and locality and anything else that

237
is required in order that a ballot should be carried out. If you are going to have a ballot, it should be done properly.
The second point refers to pickets. My Lords, the right to picket is an old and valued right in this country. It dates from the days when men called the attention of their fellow workers to the fact that an industrial dispute was going on inside the factory. I think pickets should be composed of people from within a factory; the "rent-a-picket" theory is not an attractive one in this country. By all means let men who work in a place say what they will to their fellow workers. But the bus-loads of people who may be carted about to act as pickets are not essential to the picket system, and this matter ought to be looked at with very great care.
My Lords, I would say only this in conclusion. This Bill is one step on a very new road. We are moving into a new world. The relations between unions and management are changing all the time. The information that is given to unions is not concerned solely with wage claims; to-day it is concerned with the way that businesses are being run. I would give one example from my own experience, regarding a firm with which I am concerned. The other day we were having a discussion with the shop floor, not about wages but about the way the balance sheet looked. We said to the shop floor representatives, "What do you think we ought to earn?" They said, "We think you ought to earn 15 per cent. on capital employed". My Lords, more and more, the discussions that are taking place in industry are about the realities of management, the realities of success or of failure in a business in which, after all, we are to-day all employees. We all, or virtually all of us, are servants of these companies, and this is what the discussion is going to be about. This Bill is one first tentative step along that road.
4.47 p.m.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, to-day I ask for more than the usual indulgence that your Lordships give to a Member of this House making his maiden speech. Unlike so many Members of your Lordships' House, I have not had the experience of speaking in the other place. My rhetorical experience is limited. It
238
is confined largely to speaking at General Elections—every General Election for many years now—when I support the candidates of the Party of which I have been a member since I was old enough to think. But here my record may not appeal to noble Lords on this side of the House, for every candidate for whom I have spoken has been defeated.
My Lords, it is a year since I had the honour of being introduced into your Lordships' House. Since I was introduced there have been few topics debated about which, after listening to the speeches or noting the speakers, I felt that I should be able to make a significant contribution. But had I known who the four previous speakers to-day were to be, I should have "dived in" much sooner.
In supporting the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Shackleton I speak with some practical experience of industrial relations. For 40 years, ever since its foundation, I have been the active executive chairman of a public company, and I have been deeply involved in the day-to-day management. That company has a staff of 8,000. That may not seem as many as some noble Lords mentioned yesterday that they employ, but I suggest that I am perhaps more deeply involved with those 8,000 than are other noble Lords with their employees. It is a staff which includes engineers, electronic engineers, film editors, television directors, cameramen, publishers, editors, designers, writers, sales staff, canteen workers, drivers, cashiers and carpenters—in short, a pretty wide community, comprising all kinds of people.
Over the years we have had our debates and differences, with a dozen or more unions involved. The system has worked; but our relationship with them has not always been a question of love and kisses. Sometimes the unions have not been as accommodating as we, and especially big management, might have wished; and doubtless they could say the same about us. In business life nobody is as accommodating as one would like them to be—certainly not my bankers; certainly not my competitors; and even Government Departments do not always accommodate people in the way they would wish. Many agree that industrial relations need a change. But

239
that does not mean that we should welcome any measures that any Government try to bring in to improve matters. I do not intend, however, to take up your Lordships' time by speaking in detail on the reasons why I do not think the Industrial Relations Bill is the answer to our problems. What this Bill cannot do, what it signally fails to do, is to make management and the people on the shop floor co-operate; and that surely is what an industrial relations Bill should be about-co-operation; not the ability, with years of legal training or any other kind of training, to win a legal debate. That will not have any influence on the shop floor at all.
I speak as a businessman. I thought of the word "industrialist", or "tycoon", but I went back to "businessman". I speak in support of this Motion because I believe, with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, that it gives the Government a chance, in the light of all that has been said and written, to reconsider their position. I think that most noble Lords will agree that this Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that Parliament has ever had to consider. It is a Bill that arouses very strong feelings, and these feelings are not just emotional: they reflect deeply held convictions, the convictions of many thousands of trade unionists, managers, employers, and even some politicians.
Everybody, of course, wants better industrial relations, and if we are to achieve them we must aim not only at responsible union membership at all levels but also at a better understanding by management of the conditions and problems of people's working lives. As we all know, many people hold the view that some legislation is desirable. Others have had a try with the same purpose—and not so long ago. But I hope that we shall not get bogged down with all that. What is the point of fighting these old battles any more? I think that we should give them a good miss. It is no good passing an Act to protect shareholders when they are being mistreated by the City of London. This is a discussion about human beings, not about how to protect bankers and others in keeping their money and ours. That is why I believe your Lordships' House is the only place where this Motion can be
240
discussed free from day-to-day pressures. It gives your Lordships a chance to consider this major controversial matter calmly and dispassionately. I am afraid that I cannot consider it dispassionately, but others can. No Bill has ever had more need of detached and sensible contemplation than this one.
So, my Lords, the question is: what should we do now? Perhaps one of the major reasons why the Bill has aroused such feelings is because it has not been thoroughly understood. I wonder how many of us really understand the present Bill, which was only finally printed and issued on March 25. I, for one, must declare that I cannot fully understand all the clauses of this Bill. I have read the whole of it, and I cannot understand it all. If we in this House say that we cannot understand it with certainty, what about the people whose lives are going to be affected by it? How will they understand it? Whatever the purposes of the Bill, it cannot succeed if people do not understand it. It is of no use if we understand it, or if the chairmen and directors of companies or trade union leaders understand it, if the people on the shop floor do not. People in British industry are constantly being charged with lack of communication, from top management to the shop floor and back again. This Bill can only make things worse. If we genuinely try to create new harmony in our industrial relations, then surely everyone concerned needs to speak with great clarity.
The truth is that if this Bill goes through the rest of its stages it will no doubt become an Act—Her Majesty's Government have the power—without having been properly considered, properly examined, properly digested—above all, without having been properly explained to the people of this country. This is a Bill which demands discussion between all interested parties; between Government and Opposition, Government and unions, union members and management and labour. That is why I am supporting this Motion. This Bill needs the kind of examination that would enable at any rate parts of it to be enacted with general consent. I take it that the Government—indeed, any Government—would prefer their legislation to go through with consent rather than in the

241
teeth of bitter opposition. Of course your Lordships can say that it has already been tried. It has; and it did riot succeed. Should we on that account despair? Should we conclude that there is nothing to be done?
I do not believe that we need relegate the possibility of the Government's accepting this Motion to the realms of fantasy. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham spoke of this point. There is one thing the Government could do: they could make one gesture so imaginative that it might of itself break the ice in which attitudes on this issue have now become frozen, a gesture which offers a chance of genuine co-operation instead of prolonged dispute. The Government could accept this Motion. What could they lose by doing so? The few weeks of Parliamentary timetable already consumed? A few months without this new legislation? Are these such great sacrifices? Will the nation really suffer if this Bill is not law before the end of the summer? These are small losses compared to the possible gain. For the possible gain is enormous.
My Lords, I believe that the very act of accepting this Motion would make it possible to start a new dialogue between Government and management and unions and Opposition, out of which some measure of agreement might come. It would be one of the most potentially fruitful developments in industrial relations that this country has ever seen. Even if part of this Industrial Relations Bill could be put on the Statute Book with the general agreement of all those involved, this alone would do more to achieve the harmony we all want than an Act imposed upon millions who profoundly object to it. Of course, it might not work. It might be impossible to get such talks started, let alone to carry them through to a successful conclusion. But is that any reason for not trying? Let us have a go, my Lords.
4.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, there falls to me the pleasant duty of congratulating the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, on his maiden speech. It really was art achievement to be able to give us a reasonably non-controversial speech which was yet so interesting. I hope that we shall hear the noble Lord often, and especially that
242
we may have the benefit of his knowledge on artistic matters.
To return to my own speech, coming as late as this, and knowing how your Lordships have so far carefully refrained from saying anything that might be hurtful, I feel that I should tear up my speech and start afresh. I am going to make some points, and make them fairly strongly; but they are by way of sitting back and looking at the situation and not an attempt to be unkind to any particular section of the community. I shall, however, criticise in some measure all those involved, though my speech is not specifically aimed at any of them. I hope that perhaps they will think about the points that I am going to make.
I should have thought that most of us have come to the conclusion that in the long run satisfactory industrial relations can be achieved in our sort of society only by a partnership between shareholders, management and employees. The problem is how to change the attitudes of people to try to bring this about. I think that if those of us who agree with this should nail our flag firmly to the mast that might help us along this road. We have heard several suggestions as to the ways in which progress can be made. Fundamentally the problem rests with management. I do not know whether the Duke of Wellington's famous phrase has been quoted, about there being no bad troops, only bad officers, but it is one worth remembering. Looking back—and I have had a certain opportunity over the last 10 or 15 years since I left the Army of seeing how industry works—it strikes me that 15 years ago management ought to have realised that they no longer had a big stick. Whether they liked it or not, that was going to be the situation. There was only one solution, and that was what we in the Army termed leadership. This is a very simple conception. All it means is trying to inspire those working for you with a sense of purpose and fulfilment.
There are many techniques which are well known to those who are dealing with man management as to how to try to bring about this end. But in my travels through industry, though there have been some surprising exceptions, it is quite extraordinary how in so many cases management simply have not learned the first techniques of even trying to do this.

243
I know, of course, that with the bad industrial relations that we have in many areas it is going to take a very long time before any overtures which management may make are not regarded with suspicion.
I am now going to say one or two things that I hope the trade unionists will not mind my saying. They are a little critical, but I am only appealing to them to think over what I am saying. The unions did a great and excellent job in improving the lot of the workers at a time when there was a real need to fight for it; and many noble Lords sitting on the Opposition benches were doughty champions of that movement. What, however, I think is unfortunate and distressing is that attitudes, of management and of the unions and their supporters, have become atrophied and frozen in some of these bygone concepts. We talk about collective bargaining, sometimes in terms of endearment, though so often to-day this means little more than the rule of the jungle. Maybe at the moment there is nothing better; but there ought to be, and we should be seeking it.
I sometimes listen to noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, whose judgment and record I admire, and who have far greater qualifications to sit in this House and to speak than I have. But when matters concerning industrial relations are at stake, I particularly recall the case of Rooke v. Barnard. They are fighting again the battle which they fought so bravely over thirty years ago; but, with all respect to them, they are not hitting to-day's target. That is all that I wish to say on that subject, and I hope that it is in no way offensive.
What worries me even more are our Party attitudes. When the nation is so concerned as it is to-day, and its future is at stake, so often what is done on a Party basis does nothing except appeal, or attempt to appeal, to the most emotional side of the electorate, with arguments which are calculated not to inform, but simply to arouse emotion. I appeal to Party leaders, in this House and elsewhere, to remember that when serious matters are at stake we really cannot play a petty Party game.
Another point I wish to make is that, if we analyse the present situation, there is just so much national cake to be shared
244
out between us all, and no more. It is true that we can alter its distribution; and one can of course argue that all rich people ought to be brought down to a common level. But the net increase, if you distribute this cake among everybody is comparatively small. The Labour Party have tried in some measure to do this. But to-day, frankly, there are as many rich people as ever there were. The only difference is that they belong to a different category. In the process some of the worthy groups, and in particular the salaried men, have come off badly: they are not rich, and they cannot he rich men to-day. So if people want to level incomes further, please do not go on tilting still at the wrong target. I have said this many times in the House. Time and again when the question of an increase in salary arises the same old story is always brought up: the man who is tilted against is the fixed income man and it seems to be forgotten that he is no longer a rich man by to-day's standards.
Over the last twenty years or so, I would say that the unions, with all their efforts and the strife involved, have not really raised the workers' wages appreciably more than would have been the case had they been assessed simply on increased productivity and changed monetary values. I know that they have improved the workers' lot. But we are paying a terrible price for this sort of industrial strife, which in fact is achieving nothing at all. What has happened in many cases is that those with industrial bargaining power have received increases, often at the expense of those who have not got that power. I cannot help asking: Is this the socialism that we (I say "we", because at heart most of us are socialists, though not Party Socialist) are trying to achieve?
I have a great deal of sympathy with the unions because they are not really able to contain their more militant elements. I am afraid I am going to be unkind enough to say that leadership from the rear has become the order of the day. Unless the unions are prepared to lead from the front, with modern ideas, they will not endure. That would be a disaster for this nation.
Finally, I sum up my own personal position by saying: do not let us "fiddle while Rome burns", because the national situation is serious. An industrial Act of some sort is needed. Whatever we do,

245
or however much we discuss it, we shall not get unanimous agreement; nor shall we get an Act that we do not find by experience needs amending. But for goodness sake! let us step out bravely into the twentieth century; let us have an Act without too much discussion or waste of time, and let us do this without the unfortunate demonstrations and pressures which have occurred in some places.
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in offering our sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, on his most agreeable first speech in this House. The noble Lord's great experience of the communications media and in the field of art will be of great value to this House in the future.
I have been interested in industrial relations in a small way for fifty years, and I have always tried to prevent them from from getting mixed up with Party politics because the two do not get on very well together, was sad, therefore, that this Bill, like the one that the last Government proposed to introduce, got embroiled in Party politics in another place and outside. I always believe that we are right to do as much as we possibly can by agreement when agreement can be obtained, because the things that we as a nation do when we are united generally last better than those we do when we are divided. But when we cannot get agreement, then we cannot fall back on inaction and inertia. On the other hand, I have been, as many of your Lordships will have been, enormously encouraged by the course of the debate that we have had so far. It has been, I think, your Lordships' House at its best: and I only wish that some of the excellent and relevant speeches that we have listened to could receive wider publicity—with the exception, of course, of the speech your Lordships are listening to now.
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave us very lucid expositions of the aims and intentions of the Bill; and the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, if I may respectively say so, in a most able and restrained speech, set the tone which I trust will influence the whole of our discussions throughout the course of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord
246
Diamond, spoke with his accustomed courtesy and patient manners. The noble Lord and I often crossed swords on other occasions in another place. My sword has got rather rusty, but I was just about to raise it over my head when I put it back in its sheath again when the noble Lord said, "Let us exploit the wide area of agreement that does exist between us".
The primary purpose of industry is, I suppose, the efficient production of goods and services, but a secondary aim which, because of the nature of industry, runs it pretty close in importance is that it should afford opportunities for satisfaction and a sense of achievement on the part of those millions of people who spend the greater part of their lives engaged in it. However technical and automated and capital-intensive industry becomes, we shall be making a great mistake if we think of it other than as a vast human co-operative enterprise. If it ever ceases to be that, it will mean that the machine has become our master. So what we are discussing to-day is of profound importance in human as well as in economic terms.
The question that must be asked is, has legislation any part to play in improving the environment—to use a topical word—in which those engaged in industry can develop a more effective sense of common purpose? There are some who might claim that legislation has no useful part to play. Others, indeed, seem to go further and suggest that conflict is the natural order of things and no common purpose exists or can exist. Both views I am certain are wrong. Complete freedom from conflict is not to be expected in any human affairs, not even in enterprises where a spirit of co-operation exists; but if conflict is allowed to become the normal state, then that enterprise cannot prosper or succeed for long. It will be continuously frustrated. It is like marriage, my Lords—or so I am informed. As an indignant spouse complained, "We are incompatible, but he is far more incompatible than me". It has been said that people cannot be made more reasonable or unselfish or cooperative by legislation, and that is probably so; but that does not mean that these qualities flourish better in a complete absence of a framework of law.
As the Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Carr, said in introducing this

247
Bill, "Law in a civilised society is a condition of freedom and not its enemy", and in any true collective activity of human beings some guidelines of accepted law or rules is almost always required within which those activities can operate. Some people talk as if the idea of bringing trade union activities within a framework of law is a novel idea, but as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said, and as others have reminded us, we have for over 100 years had laws applicable to trade unions, mostly, I believe, introduced by Tory Governments; and my noble friend Lord Conesford has in fact written a book on trade union law and probably before long he will be engaged on another.
What is now required is to bring these laws up to date so that they will fit the conditions, not of 100 years ago, but of to-day and to-morrow. I agree with my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft who said just now that the worst problems that arise are not due to the strength of trade unions; I believe that they are due to a breakdown of personal communications between individuals and the impersonal and remote organisations which affect their lives. That is not only true of trade unions—I am talking in a wider context than trade unions.
Will a Bill of this kind be a panacea for industrial conflict? Of course not; but I believe it should help. My own experience in industry convinces me that by far the most potent influence is direct personal relations, and where units are small and personal contacts close then very seldom do people behave irresponsibly. Our troubles to-day are due to these huge impersonal organisations, every day getting bigger and more impersonal, and bigness in those circumstances is a terrible handicap. It seems to me that what we have to devise is a sensible code of accepted practice within which free discussions and negotiations and normal relations can be carried on. That is what this Bill seeks to provide, and if I thought that it was going to be a legalistic mass of nonsense I would personally have nothing to do with it at all.
Some people say—and it sounds very reasonable—"Yes, reforms and a new framework of rules are required, but let them be drawn up not by legislation
248
but by the trade unions and employers themselves. Leave it to them to reform themselves". I admit that I used to belong to that school of thought, but we must bear in mind what has or has not happened during the past 25 years. Twenty-five years ago, I believe that Britain really had the best system of industrial relations in the world, but even then it was generally agreed that some reforms were badly needed. It was decided then that the reforms needed should be left to the trade unions and employers to work out themselves, and what has happened? I am afraid, my Lords, that things have deteriorated. The figures speak for themselves. I think the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, yesterday reminded us that those figures, bad as they were, ignored the indirect effects on other sections of industry caused by stoppages.
Some critics still seem to talk as if our industrial relations were working perfectly smoothly. It is true that the bulk of the trouble is concentrated in three or four major industries, but those industries happen to be ones of quite exceptional importance to the national economy. Our particular complaint undoubtedly is unofficial stoppages, and indeed these stoppages have earned for us the unenviable designation in some countries of "the British disease". It has been said quite often that a larger number of days are lost by strikes in some other major countries, and that is true. That is quoted in extenuation, but as my noble friend Lord Caldecote implied yesterday in his interesting speech, no other country seems to get as many complaints of broken export delivery promises as we do.
I am afraid that it is very difficult to claim that to-day we have the best industrial relations in the world. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, reminded us yesterday of the great importance of differentials. I agree with that entirely. I only wish that I could feel that his proposals were workable. I believe we have reached a point where it is absolutely necessary now for Parliament to take a hand in devising the framework of reform. This necessity seems to be recognised throughout the nation and is impossible to question. The Labour Government recognised it, and intended to take action. The present Government obtained a mandate from the electorate

249
for the Bill. Everything that has happened since has convinced the nation at large still more that remedial legislative action is urgent and must be taken.
The Labour Party's attitude to the Bill in another place must have been highly embarrassing to many of them, because it was only two years ago that their leaders were saying that a Bill which, in many ways, is not all that dissimilar to this Bill, was urgent and essential, and they only stopped saying so when their Left-Wing and the trade unions threatened to "clobber" them. The one day protest strikes against Parliamentary action not only have inflicted grave and pointless injury on our national economy, but I should have thought were unique in political ineptitude. The report in the evening paper to-day about the court case is not without significance.
I have not, like the noble Lord. Lord Redcliffe-Maud, read the Bill through three times and found it light reading. I got along pretty well until I got to Clause 133: "Application of Part VII to Scotland". Paragraph (b)" '"stay' means sist'". Then my enthusiasm began to evaporate, and I clearly need a tutorial from the noble Lord. I find the Bill reasonable in every line and, above all, fair. Anyone who knows the present Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Carr, will not be surprised at that. I am certain that where relations are good nothing in this Bill need damage them. Where they are bad the way to improvement should be clearer. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that the code of practice is a most important part of the Bill. I agree, too, with my noble friend Lord Watkinson when he said that it is likely to impose considerable obligations on employers when it comes along. It will not be a one-sided document. I share the view that that is going to be an important consequential of the Bill. Any criticism I may have of the Bill, therefore, is not of unfairness but that the machinery proposed in an anxiety to be fair may prove rather complicated and difficult for the ordinary factory worker to comprehend. I wish it could be simplified a bit.
That brings me to the last thing that I want to say. We have the good fortune to have in this House a number of experienced and greatly respected trade union leaders or past trade union leaders.
250
I see some of them opposite me now. They may or may not have received a political directive to breathe fire and slaughter day and night, and to continue breathing it for a very long time. My Lords, we know that our blue blood flows somewhat sluggishly through our veins after about 10 p.m. These greatly respected noble Lords may have been instructed to keep us up so late that our blue blood ceases to flow at all.
We know however these noble Lords to be men with far from docile characters. The plea I want to make to them is a plea which has already been made: that they should not be content with denunciation of the Bill in general terms—a Bill, after all, which follows in several important respects the lines on which their own Government's Bill would have followed—but they should bring their valuable first-hand experience to bear on the actual provisions of the Bill and help us all to improve them in constructive and practical ways.
That constructive role, if I may say so, is one which is much more in keeping with the characters and general outlook of the noble Lords to whom I have referred, and should they do this I can promise them we shall listen to them eagerly and attach great value to their advice. This improvement-seeking role (if I may so describe it) which has been recommended to us in this debate by noble Lords from all Parties, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, is one which I believe to be a very worthy role indeed for this House. This Bill would be most unusual if it is not capable of improvement. The clauses that have not been debated in detail in another place will call for particularly careful examination and scrutiny. Also, there are matters which have been raised in this debate already, such as the agency agreement and the difference between the agency agreement and the post entry closed shop which again will require considerable consideration.
So, my Lords, let us see what we can do together in a spirit of real reforming zeal to make this Bill more easily understandable and more effective. Let us see if we can remove those suspicions that are sincerely in the minds of some and

251
prove that so far from menacing and endangering, it will strengthen and invigorate human relations in industry to the enormous advantage of the nation at large.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I ask him a very short question? He assures us that the code of practice will be fair. How does he, and how do we, know that it will be fair when it has not been presented?
VISCOUNT AMORY: I made a guess; the noble Baroness will remember what I said—that I regarded the code of practice as being extremely important. I then went on to say that I agreed with my noble friend Lord Watkinson that it would probably lay considerable obligations on employers. I do not think I guessed about its contents beyond that. But we have indications in the Consultative Document, and other sources, of the kind of contents that are envisaged. If that code of practice does not prove fair, I have no doubt that we shall have ample opportunities of debating its contents.
5.28 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I have listened to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack making his usual robust speech, and I have listened to his speeches for over 20 years. However, I hope to answer him in stating my case. Although there are certain precedents regarding voting against a Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord rather dodged the constitutional issue. He may not know it, but it is not usual to oppose a Statutory Order in the House of Lords. However, on the Rhodesia question nearly a hundred Tories went into the Lobby against the Rhodesian Order. I was very pleased to hear the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Durham, who is from my own county, making a speech full of understanding of the working-class people in my area. I thank him for that speech. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bernstein on his maiden speech.
I speak as a trade unionist. As I have looked at the present Tory Government in action (and my mind goes back over 50 years) there is no doubt that this is the most vicious Government since 1926 towards the working-class people. In all the years that I have taken part in politics
252
and trade unionism I have never known the Tories to be friends of the trade union movement, except one Minister of Labour who was a good man to the trade unions; he believed in them and was a great conciliator. I refer to the late Lord Monckton of Brenchley, whom we knew so well. We have always had to fight the Tories and our place in society has been won in spite of them, regardless of the legal sanctions they have put upon us in the past.
In the past we were told that as Socialists we preached class war; but in all the years I have known us to be charged with practising it, it has in fact been the Tories who have practised it, and this Bill is another piece of class legislation. I remember during the time when the House of Commons met in this Chamber that the Trade Disputes Act was repealed. That was a piece of spiteful legislation by the Tory Party against the trade unions, and it took us nineteen years to get it off the Statute Book. It was a great day in my life when I marched through the Lobbies in this House to repeal that infamous Act.
This Industrial Relations Bill has been brought here after being under the guillotine. Its clauses and Schedules have been pushed through without much discussion. Some one hundred clauses important to trade unions have had no discussion at all. The Government themselves made a mockery of consultation, and the T.U.C. quite rightly refused to treat with the Government. The Government have in many respects ignored the Report of the Donovan Commission, and also the work of the trade unions and employers to improve industrial relations. They are in this Bill transplanting a crude version of the American labour law into Britain, and are branding as unlawful trade union methods that have been legally established for over a hundred years. Their whole Bill is a plan based on the political dogma of crippling trade union activities.
Then why is it being proposed, and for what purposes? The trade unions are to-day being made the whipping boy to distract the public's attention from the Government's inability to carry out their promises of lower prices. In fact, the Government are letting prices rip and they have taken away what little protection the consumer had. Their policies

253
are putting up rents by 10s. a week; increasing medical prescription charges by up to 4s. per item; increasing the price of welfare milk to mothers and taking milk away from children over seven years of age at school, and increasing the price of school meals, in two stages, from 1s. 9d. to 2s. 10d. They are increasing the charges for ophthalmic and dental treatment, and they have taken away the three waiting days of the unemployed, the sick and the injured. Rates are going up and rents are higher. These increases happen this year. That is why this Bill is being brought forward—to handcuff the trade unions in their fight to meet the onslaught on their standard of living.
The main purport of this obnoxious Bill is that the Registrar will rule the unions. It means we have to apply to withdraw from the Register and get no State licence to operate. If you do not go on the Register you have no rights under the Bill, and employers will have the right to sue trade unions and their members for damages caused by a strike, as they did 70 years ago under the Taff Vale decision. This overturns more than a century of the development of voluntary institutions in Britain. The extension of the rights of working people in this country has taken place through the collective efforts of the people themselves through their unions. The State during this time stood on one side or did its best to see that they were net successful.
Now these basic hard-won rights are to be transformed into privileges to be handed out only to those who conform to the Tory view of what is good for them. When the Bill becomes law only registered unions, or union members acting with specific authority of the union, will have protection from action for damages. Anyone who simply demands action to get wages up or conditions of work altered could he liable for damages for threatening to induce a breach of contract. It will not be just a case of what has been put in writing; if someone says it at a meeting in the canteen, or over a pint of beer in the pub, he could be sued in the courts unless he is acting with the specific authority of a registered trade union. If a strike takes place without that specific authority it will be illegal for anybody to publish anything supporting the workers' case. I know
254
there has been a cry on this about the freedom of the Press; I am not too much concerned about that because I have never yet known the Press support men when they were on strike.
As regards union rules the Donovan Commission, after taking evidence over three years, said there was little evidence that membership questions were ever dealt with unfairly. Nowhere in this Bill is there any acknowledgment of the work the Trades Union Congress has done to improve the very extensive machinery for appeals against disciplinary action within the unions. Again, there is no appreciation of the T.U.C.'s action in the last 12 months in recommending to all unions the model rules on admission and discipline, on procedures calling for strikes, on the duties and responsibilities of shop stewards and the exclusion of membership.
In this Bill there is no place for the T.U.C. Disputes Committee, which has satisfactorily settled hundreds of disputes. The findings of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions, and the willingness of the trade union movement to make doubly sure that the rights of individual members are fully protected, count for nothing in this Bill. British workpeople are not trusted by the Tories to frame the rules of their own free organisations, but are to be supervised and, where necessary, instructed by a State agency. The Government intend to set up a new Industrial Relations Court. It will have the status of the High Court and the authority of the High Court, and will behave like a High Court. This is to he done in spite of what the Donovan Commission said on this issue. They dismissed this idea when they said:
"We do not propose that they"—
the courts—
"should be given the job of resolving industrial disputes or differences arising between employers and workpeople. These are matters which must be settled by procedures of, or agreed through, collective bargaining."
My Lords, this Bill will be a money-spinner for lawyers and solicitors and will be a financial burden on the unions. If agreements governing people's work are to be legally enforceable they will be incomprehensible to most union members and shop stewards. It will mean that union officials and personnel managers will be forever running to solicitors, instead of

255
using their common sense to deal with a problem. Legal terminology is essential if judges are to look at every comma in these agreements. If it is the intention to bring in legislation that any collective agreement between unions and employers, on wages or anything else, is a legally binding and enforceable contract unless it clearly states to the contrary, it will mean that if a wage agreement does not specifically state that it is not legally binding it will be regarded as binding and any strike or threat to strike in a case where this is in force will be illegal. It means simply that, whatever happens, workers will be unable to bring pressure to bear in order to change the agreement when it is in force.
It will not matter if the cost of living goes up—if it soars as it is now doing—or if the employer completely changes the job, or if vast profits are being made by the undertaking: the agreement stands. Both parties to a legally binding collective agreement would have to use their best endeavours to avoid or to bring to an end any industrial action in breach of it. An employer will thus stand in a safe position in regard to getting damages against a union if the Industrial Relations Court decides that the union had not done enough to stop the strike. Not only would the trade union be liable for damages if it was in breach of the contract, but equally it would have no protection if an employer could prove that it would induce a breach of a binding agreement. That could be used to cover the union spokesmen talking openly with other members about bringing bargaining pressure to bear on an employer.
A union would have to act as an agent for its members and commit them legally on procedure agreements. This requires a fundamental, and what I regard as an impossible, change in the relationship between a union and its members. In effect, a general secretary will have to guarantee the behaviour of many thousands of working men and women, and that just cannot be done. If contracts are to be legally enforceable, agreements will have to be written in a very different form, with much legal jargon, and to propose that a general secretary should be responsible for thousands of people is really impracticable. In a dispute at a pit or a factory, when men
256
are angry with their employer they do not consider the legal consequences or what their general secretary has said.
The Donovan Commission, of which the Government have taken no notice, stated:
"An attempt to make collective agreements legally binding would be a breach with a long tradition of our industrial relations."
They did not think it was likely to improve industrial relations or to reduce the number of unofficial strikes; and to make the present inadequate procedure agreements legally enforceable would be irrelevant and would divert attention from, and hinder action to remedy, the real causes. Let there be no mistake about it, trade unions will not make legally enforceable agreements, nor can one expect any general secretary to make an agreement for his members on this basis. What it will mean, if collective agreements are not entertained on this legal basis within the Bill—and they will not be—is that greater chaos will be created in industry than now, and bitterness will be the end product.
The National Industrial Relations Court and the tribunals will have a large say in what rules union members may make for running their own organisations and how they apply their rules. In effect, therefore, the set-up of the Court will mean that a judge and an employer will make vital decisions about trade union management and policy. It is said that access to the tribunals and the N.I.R.C. should be easy, and this is coupled with very wide jurisdiction. It means clearly that case law will arise that a decision on one individual case by any one of the tribunals or the Court could affect thousands of workers in industry. I cannot see this bringing industrial peace.
What will happen is that the present flexibility to adjust agreements to suit new circumstances and changed conditions will wither. The Court will have laid down the law and only another court will be able to change it. Again, the Donovan Committee looked closely at the idea of labour courts, and they dismissed the idea with these words:
"We do not propose that they should be given the job of resolving industrial disputes or differences arising between employers and workpeople. These are matters which must be settled by procedures of, or agreed through, collective bargaining".

257
The Government are doing nobody a favour by offering every worker the right to belong to a union when at the same time they are also giving an "unqualified" right to people to choose whether or not to join a union. It can make nonsense of existing and well understood arrangements between employers and unions. It can lead to increased friction in the unions and to more disputes, and it can stimulate the growth of breakaway unions. Possibly that is what is behind all this. A non-unionist in a fully organised trade union factory, workshop or mine would not be subject to the rules of a union, so the authority of the union is diminished—the exact opposite of what the Government say they want. My Lords, trade union tradition is so strong in many places that members of a union will prefer not to work at all than to work alongside non-unionists. What do you do if you get thousands of men who take this stand? Do you impose penalties that could lead to prison for those who do not comply? Once this happens, I am sure it will raise the whole trade union movement into action.
Why is it that only trade unionism is singled out in this way? The individual who is a non-unionist will not be given a legal right to stay out of his firm's superannuation or sick pay scheme. What is more, the union itself, and not just the individual, must have the right to bring an action against the employer. Otherwise workers of the future might have to expose themselves in order to make it a test case.
To the Commission on Industrial Relations the Government are to hand out a new task. This will be to recommend who should have the sole negotiating rights for any specified group of employees. The N.I.R.C. would have power to make the recommendation binding. This is the way in which this will work. Not only the employment Minister, or a union, or the employer, but any little group of workers would be able to go to the N.I.R.C. with any questions of recognition or wage bargaining. The Court would then have complete discretion to decide whether the Commission on Industrial Relations should look into it, and as long as the issue is before the Court or the C.I.R., and for an unspecified time afterwards, any strike or threat of strike would be an "unfair action" and thus illegal. Here is the
258
door wide open for any small minority of disgruntled workers, non-unionists or members of house unions or company unions or the breakaway ones, to think up some question for the C.I.R., by-pass the union and slow its chances of getting a quick settlement. Where the question is one arising out of a difference between two unions, there is nothing for the T.U.C. to be given a chance to sort out, as it has been doing for over forty years.
I should like to say a word or two about the cooling-off period of 60 days. I opposed the penal clauses in the White Paper In Place of Strife, and my speech is on record, so at least I can claim that I am consistent on this issue. The Government intend to give the N.I.R.C. power to impose a 60-day cooling-off period in any action which would create a national emergency, and powers to demand a secret ballot where there is doubt whether an action is supported by a majority of workers involved. The penalty for breaking the 60-day order is not spelled out yet, but presumably it would be the imposition of a fine or prison.
The proposal—even the phrase "cooling-off"—is an import from the United States and is based on the Taft-Hartley Act. Yet in every case in the United States where a ballot has been demanded under this Act the result has been to reject the employers' final offer; the record under this Taft-Hartley Act in the Slates has been worse than the record in our own country, said the Royal Commission on Trade Unions. The Royal Commission, praising the flexible procedures of Britain for settling national disputes, said:
"If the more rigid arrangements of the fixed cooling-off period had been used in their place, strikes may have taken place which were in fact avoided".
The facts are that cooling-off periods rarely lower the temperature; they are hotting-up periods, 60 days for both sides to stoke up support for the impending but delayed battle. If a union has been negotiating for months and has reached the end of the road, then 60 days will be the period in which each side will consolidate their position.
On strike ballots, the Government have disregarded entirely the Royal Commission's view. The Donovan Report pointed out that there was little evidence

259
that workpeople were less likely to vote for strike action than their leaders. To remove from responsible trade union leaders the right to exercise any responsibility would be likely to militate very strongly against confidence in union leadership. As forecast by the Donovan Report, the result would be to encourage unofficial action and not reduce it.
My Lords, at the Tory Party Conference the Prime Minister said:
"You will see that our strategy is clear. The strategy is to leave more to the individual or corporate effort. It is to encourage them to stand on their own feet. The single most important service that I believe the Government can perform for the British people is to restore to them more and more freedom."
Those were the Prime Minister's great words to rouse the faithful at the Tory Party Conference. But freedom for whom? Freedom for 10 million working men and women to take their own decisions, democratically, about the way their own unions shall be run? Freedom for responsible bodies in the unions to stand on their own feet, to use their own experience and judgment and decide what action it is best to take? This freedom is not for trade unionists.
The Government propose that a new Registrar will have powers to change the rules of freely formed and self supporting unions, or withdraw their licence to operate if they do not agree. And the Minister will be able to ask the new Court for an order enforcing a 60-day cooling-off period or a strike ballot whenever he thinks fit, and he will determine what is a national emergency. Whatever the Prime Minister had in mind about freedom, it was clearly intended that the trade unions were not to be given it. The eight pillars of this Bill are: registrar to license unions and vet the rules; legal right to join or not to join a union; legally binding contracts unless otherwise stated; less legal protection for the union and its members; cooling-off periods and compulsory strike ballots; power to impose binding procedures; powers to define who shall bargain for groups of workers, and new powers on union recognition. In all these ways the law will determine the pattern of industrial relations instead of complementing arrangements that have been freely negotiated by the unions and
260
employers. Far from achieving its professed purpose of strengthening the industrial relations system, this legislation, on the contrary, sets back the progress that unions and employers are already making. All these eight points or pillars will not make for peaceful relations in this country and will undermine trade union authority right through.
There has been no consultation with the T.U.C., except on the condition that the Government would consult if the trade unions accepted the central legal pillars of the Bill. Discussions by the T.U.C. on this basis would have been a mockery of the consultative process that has been built up between the trade unions and successive Governments of both Parties over the last thirty years. There is no fairness in this Bill, which proposes to weaken the organisations of workpeople and strengthen the hands of the employers. The Bill is a crude attempt to import the American system of labour relations at a time when the American system of labour relations is itself undergoing severe opposition from the workpeople there.
My Lords, there are many other facets of this Bill which hamper the trade unions and which will be dealt with in Committee stage. I regard the Bill as a blackleg's charter, and the creation of compulsory and breakaway unions as part of a plan to weaken the trade unions in their relations with the employers. It ill becomes the Tory Party to claim that they want to enlarge freedom when practically their first political act is to make activities unlawful that for a hundred years Parliament and the courts have upheld as right and proper, and to establish an array of new State agencies. To me, this is double talk. It ought to be made clear now that when we return to power we will do with this Bill what we did in 1947 with the Trade Disputes Bill, and in agreement with the T.U.C. put an agreed Bill upon the Statute Book. Much bitterness will arise in the industrial field whenever this Bill operates on the factory floor. It will not solve anything but will make matters worse.
This is not the first onslaught that has been met by the trade unions. I am confident they can meet this one in the light of the policy of non-co-operation. Why should the T.U.C. co-operate with their

261
executioner, when it means their death? I would say to those of my friends in this part of the House and outside, and in another place, not to give solace to the Tories in their anti-trade union Bill, but to remember the words of John L. Lewis in America when attacking the Taft-Hartley legislation. He criticised President Roosevelt when he said:
"It ill behoves one who has supped at Labour's table, and who has sheltered in Labour's house, to curse with equal fervour and fine impartiality both Labour and its adversaries when they become locked in deadly embrace."
I will support the Motion that is moved by our Front Bench. This Bill is so oppressive to the trade unions because it takes away liberties that they have had for years, it will encourage scab unions, it will make industrial relations worse, it will make it a crime for men to withdraw their labour, which is all they have to sell, that tonight I shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
6.2 p.m.
THE LORD BISHP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, for all practical purposes this debate has been long enough already; but it is only a part of a debate that has been going on for several years, and I think it may contribute to a rational consideration of its many contentious elements if it is considered against the still longer historical perspective. The traditional Parties in our country have all had their share in moulding the place that trade unions have come to occupy in our body politic. It was a Tory Government under the Duke of Wellington which repealed the Combination Acts in 1824—doubtless more from necessity than choice. A Liberal Government under Gladstone relieved the unions of the danger of liability for criminal conspiracy in 1871; but it was Disraeli in 1875 who gave them their really important immunity and legalised peaceful picketing.
This legislation contented the trade unions for many years. The Liberals came in again with the vitally important Trade Disputes Act of 1906, whereby tile unions were freed from the courts even if their acts were technically wrongful. It removed the possible charge of civil conspiracy. The Labour Government
262
passed a Trade Disputes Act in 1965 to counteract the results of the Rooke v. Barnard case in 1964. Up to then everybody had won, and everybody had earned a prize.
So we come to the more recent episodes in this long saga. I should like to begin by recalling something that many will now have forgotten, the so-called Marlow Declaration of 1963. This was signed by leading industrialists, trade union leaders, clergy, and schoolmasters. Clause 7 of that Declaration stated:
"A happy and smooth-working industrial partnership requires that the dignity of man is respected at all times, that there is an effective system of negotiation and consultation, using all appropriate methods, and that responsibility is fully accepted individually and collectively."
This may not seem of much importance now, but I would point out that one of the signatories was Mr. Ian Stewart, who played such a prominent part in the revival—unfortunately short-lived—of the Fairfield dockyard on the Clyde, as is dramatically told in the book Whatever happened at Fairfields. What happened there was two years of co-operation between workers and management of a type not recently known in our industrial history.
Then came the Donovan Commission, the general conclusion of which was to keep industrial agreements out of the courts. But there was to be registration of unions, for paragraph 791 reads:
"The unregistered trade union may consider that the benefits of registration are not worth the duties which registration entails, yet it cannot be said that these duties are onerous or vexatious. They do not go beyond what any well run trade union would do in any event; and while nobody likes having to do something which previously was optional, a law which obliged the unregistered trade union in future to become registered would not, in our opinion, impose a hardship, work any injustice, or deprive unregistered unions of some valuable liberty. Companies would have to register their agreements with the Department of Employment and Productivity. Failure to register would incur a fine."
The Report, as a whole, was a masterly document, but it represented a series of compromises in which the management/ worker polarisation is but thinly disguised. Some cogent notes by the noble Lords, Lord Tangley, Lord Robens of Woldingham, and others, had to be added outside the main Report.

263
So to In Place of Strife, the next landmark, in January, 1969. This document drew back from legally binding agreements as a general rule, but it did permit them. It recommended the conciliation pause, though for only 28 days. It demanded the registration of unions, with a penalty for non-compliance. Everyone knows the fate of those proposals. It is not my purpose to criticise a former Government for withdrawing, for, as the book entitled The Battle of Downing Street makes abundantly clear, the political forces in the Labour Party against the Bill were very powerful. Only what is possible can be done, and I mention the White Paper only to show how, from one source and another, ideas in the present Bill have arisen in different contexts and environments. But each episode has occurred at a different moment in history, and what is possible or necessary at one moment may be different from that which is possible or necessary at another.
So we come to the present Bill, which takes over some things from Donovan, some from In Place of Strife, some from the plans and programmes of the Party now in power. The industrial situation has not remained static even since Donovan. For instance, Donovan states in paragraph 462:
"Our problem is the short spontaneous outburst, not the planned protracted industrial action of long duration, which is the main problem, for example, in the United States and in Canada."
Is this quite so convincing after the Post Office strike and the Ford dispute? As the symptoms of our disease vary, so must the prescription for relief and cure.
I will not weary your Lordships with my very unimportant opinion about the various controversial points in the Bill, such as freedom to join a union or not to join. Perhaps I may here interject that there has been some discussion, particularly among my right reverend brethren, about the way in which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark's remarks yesterday about "clobbering" the unions were reported In "To-day in Parliament". I have found it necessary to check with the B.B.C. as to what he actually said, or what they said he said, and the fact is that they summarised his remarks in a way which left it open to the belief that
264
he himself thought the Bill was "clobbering" the unions. I have checked in Hansard what he said, and he has confirmed to me that he did not mean to suggest that at all, but was merely referring to an opinion held in various quarters that that was the purpose or the result of the Bill.
The requirement of 51 per cent. in order to qualify for an agency closed shop has been the subject of much discussion, and it would seem hard to substantiate a claim to speak for all workers with a smaller majority. But there are points in the Bill about which I am not entirely satisfied. It appears that abstentions from a vote seem to be counted against the creation of a closed shop; whereas abstentions from a vote to discontinue a closed shop seem to be counted in favour of that change. There are many points of that sort which will no doubt need to be discussed and thoroughly threshed out in Committee: so with the compulsory ballot, in certain cases the registration of unions in default of their not contracting out, and so on. All this is familiar and most of us, I suspect, have now taken up our stances and are not likely to change from them before the passing of the Bill. I must say it would seem that only a miracle of Grace is likely to change the views of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, who preceded me. But I can only say, as one Government have used their responsible position to reject industrial legislation of this type, that I fully respect the right of another Government to try the experiment; and I think that everyone should respect that right, too.
I should like to end by offering a few thoughts on the matters which will decide whether the experiment is likely to succeed. The first is that all sides should remember the healing power of time. Time, it has been said, is a great Christian gentleman. The heated controversy of the last few months cannot be expected to cool in a few days or weeks, but nothing is lost by all of us trying to understand the emotions and thoughts of our opponents. Perhaps an example from the history of our own House and of this Bench may be relevant. In 1831, when the Reform Bill was rejected in this House by 41 votes, three Bishops voted for it and 20 against. Our Episcopal votes were decisive in what we should all agree

265
now was the wrong cause. For some time, wherever they went, Bishops were greeted with groans and yells and hisses. A mob of a thousand in Carlisle burned an effigy of their Bishop. But in 1832 12 Bishops were ready to vote for the Bill and to assist in its passing. The Morning Post commented:
"The spiritual Peers somewhat redeemed their character and their reputation with the nation."
Bishops, in fact, soon learned to live with a reformed Parliament, and the nation was soon learning once more to tolerate its Bishops.
So that when a year or two have passed we may all he able to treat this Bill, or this Act as it will presumably be, as a rather more domesticated animal than now seems probable. If, fundamentally, it is right and good, or can be made so, it will establish itself; if not, it will eventually fade away to be replaced, we hope, by something better. If we recall all the fuss that there was in this House only a few years ago about the introduction of breath tests for possibly drunken drivers, and how soon we have all accustomed ourselves to them—I am not speaking personally—it may help us to see how time changes things.
None of us, I am sure, thinks that legal arrangements are a complete answer to our problems—that, I take it, would be an under-statement of the views held by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—but this does not mean that law cannot help in the ordering of industrial, as of ally other, relationships. Selfishness, thoughtlessness, greed and pride can all be somewhat restrained by the claims of law. If there were no rule of the road and everybody was a law unto himself, tempers would rise higher and accidents would be more frequent. But the industrial system itself, in spite of all its benefits, is inherently biased against the freedom and the dignity of the human person, and these can be preserved within it only by a conscious effort on the part of all concerned. It is in the nature of technology to open up great prospects for mankind and great hazards for the individual man.
I once said in this House:
"Strikes are not about money. They are about power."
266
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, was kind enough to agree with me. Since then, we have heard so much about the 8 per cent. and the 14 per cent. rises, that we may think that strikes are about money after all. But the money is a symbol; it is a symbol of human worth and human dignity. Mass emotion can be easily whipped up, so that huge armies of men come to think that their one loyalty must be to their union or to the splinter group from the union which has espoused their cause. Their claims may he just and reasonable or they may be greedy, selfish and thoughtless. But we must always have before our eyes the inevitable interdependence of modern society. We all need each other.
If we must be in conflict, let us have rules and limits to our combativeness and an umpire whose decision is final. But how much better—here I begin once more to follow the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Durham—if we can get above the conflict and sec that we are all bound up together in our industrial life, as in the life of our families and our nation; if we can catch the vision of working each for all and all for each. This can only be if the last hundred years of industrial polarity can be seen to be as anachronistic as the Wars of the Roses. Men must have loyalties to their family, their firm, their union, their country and, it is not too much to say, to all human kind. But, in my view, no one of these loyalties can, or should claim an absolute superiority over all the rest.
6.20 p.m.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, at this late hour I am sure your Lordships are wanting to get on and to hear the main speeches from the Leader of the House and from Lord Shackleton, whom we are all delighted to see back in the House this afternoon. Therefore I shall be extremely brief, seeing that some forty speakers have gone before me. I wish at once to applaud the determination of the Government to carry through this Industrial Relations Bill, although I must say I should have preferred it if they had called it the Industrial Reform Bill. Because there has been for a very long time now a consensus of opinion that our trade union structure is to a large extent out of date and that it is necessary to bring it up to modern standards.

267
I am not going through the list of all the efforts that have been made on the T.U.C. side and by the Donovan Commission. This aspect has been most ably covered by the right reverend Prelate who has just sat down. But yesterday we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, in his authoritative speech, the statement which he made when he started his remarks:
"My Lords, Britain needs an Industrial Relations Act".
Indeed, the Donovan Commission had said the same thing; and so I would come rapidly to the point that the Conservatives thought it their duty to make trade union reform one of the main planks of their policy. They put it forward clearly in their Election Address; they obtained a strong mandate from the people to carry it out, and I applaud their determination to do so. I do not wish to go into the efforts of the last Government to bring in a reform Bill something similar to ours, and how their trade union supporters forced them to withdraw it. The noble Baroness Lady Gaitskell, went into this matter at great length yesterday, and most interestingly. But I would say this: in my judgment, if the Labour Government had been able to carry through that Bill, I think it very likely they would not have lost the last Election. And I would say this even more strongly: that if we followed the advice from the other side and abandoned this Bill now we should certainly lose the next Election, and should deserve to do so.
My Lords, I must declare an interest in this matter. I have been all my life engaged in industry, in the printing industry; and the printing industry is one that has had a long history of trade union activity. I should just like to say this about the printing industry, because it is so often maligned. Apart from industrial relations among those working on daily newspapers, which have many problems that are quite different from all other trades in this country, I would claim that, by and large, a report on the printing industry would show that their industrial relations are as good as those in any other industry in this country. They have from time to time been maligned by certain of my friends in this House, and therefore I am very happy to make that statement.
268
During the war I was privileged, as some of your Lordships know, to be Under-Secretary to that greatest of trade unionists, Mr. Ernest Bevin, and was proud to be able to claim him as my friend. It was on his advice that when I left the House of Commons I joined the Federation of British Industries, of which I was privileged to become President. So I have had a considerable experience of the history of this problem, and I have long held the opinion, my Lords, that some legal backing for voluntary agreements and contracts entered into between employers and trade unions was becoming more and more necessary in our imperfect world. If there is going to be no sanction whatever available if one party sees a greater advantage in breaking some agreement, then at times the temptation to do so may become almost too great, almost overwhelming, and I do not think we can blame the parties concerned too much. There is a great deal of integrity in the relationships between trade unions and employers, but from time to time the temptations are too strong, and I believe that that is the time when their agreements could be buttressed by law.
Another point is that there has been considerable criticism of the fact that the unions should become registered under a registrar. I was watching a television programme not long ago—something I very seldom do—when two very prominent trade union leaders were being cross-questioned. One of them, on being asked various questions, admitted that he had come to his exalted position in the union, to a position of almost absolute power, by the votes of less than 5 per cent. of its members. Later it was disclosed that since he had been elected the rules of the union had apparently been adjusted or amended so that, if he wished, he could hold that position for life, without challenge. I cannot believe that that is right or fair, and I hope that these suggestions with regard to registration under the Registrar or the Commission will make this sort of thing impossible in the future.
Of all the speeches that I have heard yesterday and today—and I have beard very many of them—I should like to commend very much the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn yesterday, and I would urge

269
any noble Lords who were not privileged to hear it to react it. It seemed to me that in his speech there was more common sense and down-to-earth explanation of his views and of the objects of the Bill than anybody else produced. I was also enormously impressed, as I think we all were, by, and for the most part in no little agreement with, the authoritative speech of Lord Donovan. He raised some important Committee points, and I have no doubt that my noble friends will pay very serious attention to them. I also hope that everybody will heed the admirable peroration with which he finished his speech. I only wish that it could be repeated to the country at large.
If I may say this to my noble friend, I think that the House is not yet completely happy about the closed shop and agency clauses. It is a great pity that somebody should have invented the word "agency". Agents are sometimes not regarded in the highest degree, and I think it was an unfortunate term to choose. However, it has been chosen, and we cannot go back on that. But yesterday there were suggestions from serious sources that some of the points in these clauses might lead to the formation of breakaway unions or, as one noble Lord called them. "scab" unions. I do not believe anybody wants this, and I should like to be assured that either the Registrar or the Commission (I am not quite sure whom it would come under) will be able to control the situation and see that this does not happen. For I am sure we are all in agreement that we want fewer and not more trade unions in this country.
As I said at the beginning of my speech—and I promise to sit down in live minutes—the objects and policies outlined in this Bill have, in the main, my wholehearted support. Particularly, I have the greatest admiration for that most fair-minded, kindly, courteous yet firm Minister, Mr. Robert Carr. I hope that our combined efforts in this House—and I use the words "combined efforts" with emphasis—will enable us to send back this Bill to the Commons unaltered in its main purposes and objects but clarified (and it needs to be clarified) polished and, it may well be, improved by our combined efforts. That we may see the Bill on the Statute Book as an Act without undue delay is, I believe,
270
most important. It is what the country wants and what the situation demands.
I was going to finish there; but I do not know whether any noble Lord noticed on the "tape" in the passage that there came last night a little item of news that the chairman, or president, or whatever he is, of the Communist Party of Great Britain—I think his name is Mr. Gollan—in addressing a great meeting in Moscow of all the Communist Parties of the Communist world, was able to claim—what was he able to claim?—that there would be more strikes in Great Britain this year than in any year since 1926. No doubt that was applauded to the echo. I believe that that gives us very serious food for thought.
6.32 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, having spent some 25 years in the House of Commons, I was delighted when I found I was to follow the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale, whose ideas of the origins of strikes I found charming, if perhaps old-fashioned, and very familiar from his early days after the War. But I shall try to address myself to two points: first, the lack of logic in the proposals of the Government, who import foreign—that is to say, largely American—ideas of the machinery for negotiation and industrial relations but do not logically appreciate that the subsequent experience in such countries as America demonstrates how, to a large extent, those machinery organisations have failed. Secondly, I feel very strongly, with great respect, that we in this House have signally failed adequately to take into account global tendencies to which we are subjected, as are other countries who have parallel problems in front of them.
I believe that the origin of this Bill stemmed from intemperate talk among Conservative social circles before the General Election. Who has not heard the cocktail-bearing lady expatiating on the evils of trade unions and the need to smash them, even if it means a general strike? We have all heard that; but, like any responsible political Party, the Conservative Party tried their best to reflect and, if necessary, to temper those extremist views. But there comes a time, as with any good Party—and certainly with my own—that it has to propose to the Legislature steps which will take

271
into account those deeply held views. In putting forward this sort of Bill, however, one of the points which has been missed completely is the extremely good record of the trade unions in the past: the encouragement by the unions of consultative machinery, of collective bargaining and productivity, of industrial training and of inter-union collaboration. The initiative in so many of these cases has come from the trade unions, to the huge advantage of business.
Have we properly assessed the origin of strikes? This is a terrible proposition to put before a sophisticated House like this; but is it not true to say that major strikes in this country originate from inflation? Is it not equally true to say that so many minor strikes, frequently unofficial, have been engendered by small, local irritations which have built up until they have affected large numbers of workers and, consequentially, involved many other factories, works and even industries? This Conservative obsession, this nervous obsession, with the political power of the unions has been something with which we have all been familiar with the years. It has lent itself to gross over-simplification of trade union attitudes and to the feeling that they have to institute repressive and even penal legislation like this Bill.
The global tendencies to which I have referred seem to me to have been disregarded by the Conservative Government, in the sense that they regard them as purely local or national tendencies of an economic sort. They disregard what is being done elsewhere and they disregard the fact that, by and large—and one must not be complacent about this—our record of industrial relations shows up very well compared with other countries of the world. Indeed, give or take a few decimal points, the consumer price position in such countries as the U.S.A., Japan, France and Sweden is much the same as ours and their industrial losses through unrest have been in many cases very much worse. We must conclude, therefore, that inflation and industrial unrest must be equated.
Basically, the difference, I should have thought, between the two Parties in this dispute is that whereas the Conservative Party take the view that the normal procedure structure should be strengthened
272
to subordinate local, informal wage procedures, we of the Labour Party feel that the formal, high-level structure needs reform to permit the incorporation of informal structures and initiatives. This is particularly necessary and important in the matter of, for instance, small component industries with which I have been involved for many years in the Midlands. A small, local dispute frequently is settled before there is much trouble; but a component factory dispute which is not settled starts in a fairly small way and can build up until, for example—because that component is in short supply—motor car production is seriously affected. It seems to lend weight to the argument that we should strengthen local procedure in order to strengthen the top-level structure.
The national interests are so frequently portrayed in the Press as a matter of general interest that the gullible may not know that to millions of workers in this country the national interest seems frequently to exclude the workers' interest. It seems quite logical, when you are working in a factory, to see things, if possible, from the national point of view; but then the workers begin to think: "They do not understand our problems". This is where the trouble starts. The Government really believe that industrial unrest in this country is engendered by indiscipline. What they do not seem to understand is that so often unrest stems from the slow and one-sided methods of settling disputes.
The Royal Commission stated:
"Greater discipline by unions over members is more likely to lead to internal disruption than a reduction of unofficial strikes."
And of course, my Lords, the indiscipline which is referred to is the indiscipline so frequently generated from quite small matters and allowed to build up. I noticed in the debate in another place that the Minister, Mr. Carr, quoted from the Donovan Report and said:
"It is important that the number of unofficial and especially unconstitutional strikes should be reduced, and should be reduced speedily."
Nobody could disagree. It was perhaps rather a pity that Mr. Carr did not go on—this is not a criticism of him; no doubt he had good reason for it—to quote the very next sentence which states:
"The first and most important step to he taken in order to get rid of unconstitutional

273
strikes is the reform of our collective bargaining system. This is our central recommendation. We cannot recommend anything which may jeopardise its success."
I construe that to mean that whereas at Government level the machinery of negotiation, of wage settlements, of relations in general, must he used on matters of general and broad principle, it is not regarded as important to ensure that locally there is an adequate sensitivity to the opinions of workers.
I wonder, my Lords, whether in the matter of wages there is not a case for examining more closely, and once again, practices which have developed, or are developing, in other reputable countries on the Continent. In Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, and now in France, there is a cost of living tie to wages which is without prejudice, in those countries, to any normal prosperity increase in wages. It seems to me, therefore, that we should take into account not only practices elsewhere, which have regard to problems at local level which engender these major strikes, but also we should have regard to the feelings of the worker who comes to work in the morning having had a row with his wife because he does not give her enough money and because the cost of living goes up and up. That is not the fault of the workers; but they come to work in a bad mood which engenders friction in the factory. I think that talk about a cooling-off period might be better addressed as a matter of principle to a Parliamentary cooling-off period; and that is what is the basis of the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Shackleton. If we can have another look at this we can extract all that is good from the Bill; and we can deduct from it the evils which have been so ably expressed this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Blyton.
6.43 p.m.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, I am sure that if, as Chairman of the T.U.C., I said I have appreciated and enjoyed this two-day debate that would he the understatement of the debate. But to my mind it has demonstrated that there are still a great many basic fundamental principles—and it is on principles, I understand, that we are debating the Second Reading—that have been completely missed. It is rather surprising to me to see how the discussion
274
has turned towards what, even after making all the appropriate allowances, may be described as an attack on trade unions. We are talking about industrial relations and I should like at the outset to come out with one or two definitions.
Industrial relations are a method of determining wages, working conditions and so on. After many years in the trade union movement, I would say—and I am sure that I shall be supported by my colleagues—that negotiating and determining is the most delicate art of all; and it rests very much not on one party but on the two parties to the discussion. I cannot get out of my mind what has happened for the last 25 years. I will say right away that I am as concerned as anyone in this House about the state of industrial relations in the country, and I believe that they can be improved. But, first of all, let us have a look at the economic situation and environment in which the trade union movement and the employers have to work in the post-war period.
Governments have been endeavouring to do a number of very difficult exercises. They have sought first to maintain full employment, and also to try to achieve growth— something about which we cannot boast very greatly, because in this we have not succeeded. When I heard this point referred to yesterday, as though it were something to do with industrial relations. I was quite surprised. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House understands that we cannot get growth by brawn. We must have better investment. We all know this—and may I say, in passing, that compared with the United States the manpower we have behind the elbow of every British working man is only one, compared to two and a half in the case of the Americans. This is how growth is achieved, and I agree that it has a bearing on industrial relations; because working people, who depend on being remunerated for their work in order to live, expect some improvement in their conditions every year whatever the economic state of the country. I accept that this is a great problem and that the improvement cannot be achieved unless we have growth. Another exercise that Governments have carried out in the post-war period relates to stable prices; and at the same time they have endeavoured to get a healthy balance of payments.

275
Why do I mention all these things, my Lords? It is to indicate that all these efforts by Governments in the economic field have made their impact on collective bargaining; and so, almost throughout the whole post-war period, starting with Sir Stafford Cripps, we have had experimentation in the field of collective bargaining. At one time Governments used to hold the ring, but in the post-war period, because of the great responsibilities which they undertook—full employment and so on—they had also to look at what was happening in collective bargaining: how much money we were spending, and how we were building up the demand situation which was very relevant to the economic situation. So we have had, from Sir Stafford Cripps onwards, restraint, guiding-lines, freezes and the "Three Wise Men". Then, in my opinion, we made a marvellous step forward. Very often you achieve certain things and then they break down, and you have to go back and start over again and keep on trying. This, of course, is the history of the early trade union movement.
I am talking now about joint efforts, and I believe that we in this country achieved a considerable development when we had what we called—this is very important—a tripartite agreement between the trade unions, management and the Government: it was known as the Declaration of Intent, and was signed in December, 1964. The unions agreed that we needed a virile, efficient economy if all the aspirations of the people whom the trade unions represent were to be achieved, and if all the aspirations of the country as a whole were to be achieved. This was a great step forward. Following that, we jumped into another experiment—and your Lordships will note how the whole sequence of experiments that have an impact on collective bargaining have been taking place throughout the post-war period. The further experiment which followed the Declaration of Intent was when we agreed to the setting up of a Prices and Incomes Board. Not only did we agree to that, but we also agreed that a criterion of 2 ½ per cent. was reasonable and was all that the country could afford at that time. That was very statesman-
276
like language by the trade unions, the employers and the Government.
I regret that when the Prices and Incomes Board were trying to do their difficult exercise their policy was said to be a complete failure because increases were running at 7 ½ per cent. I think that to-day we should regard it as a success—at any rate, it would be so regarded in some quarters—if increases were running at only 7½ per cent. All this had an impact on collective bargaining and was, in a way, a curb on collective bargaining which the trade union movement accepted by signing the Declaration of Intent.
There have been different approaches to this matter, and references to the apprehension of the trade unions about the real purpose of what the Government are trying to do. I have a document here called A Giant Curbed, which was published during this period, following a study by the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Association. The document says at page 7:
"It would be unrealistic to the point of dishonesty not to acknowledge at the outset of a pamphlet such as this that the problem is one of power."
The giant is the trade union movement, and their argument was that we are too powerful and that our power should be curbed.
In that interesting T.V. programme the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, was in the Chair. He made a masterly summary of the debate, and he said that this is a question of power. But we are in an amazingly contradictory situation. All these things led up to the Royal Commission on trade unions and employers associations, known as the Donovan Commission, which was set up by the Labour Government. They sat from 1965 to 1968—three years of painstaking work. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, is not in the House, because yesterday I listened most carefully to him and I thought that he hardly did himself justice. I think that practitioners in industrial relations would say that the Donovan Report was about the finest reference book we could have on industrial relations, and one which, in my view, is not likely to be cast aside.

277
I want to take this opportunity of dealing with the Donovan Report and then with the Bill. The Donovan Report came primarily to the conclusion that in the post-war period there had been a breakdown in what they called regulated bargaining, and that strikes were a symptom of this breakdown. This is a basic point that we ought to consider on Second Reading. The whole of the Donovan proposals can be summarised under the word "voluntarism". First of all, the Report said that we must reform collective bargaining. I think that the Labour Government agreed to set up the Commission because they were being hard pressed to do something about the strength of the unions, and they considered that this was the means of getting down to the problem. The whole concentration was on the position of the unions.
The amazing thing is that, although the unions came in for some criticism, the Report said that the two existing systems of negotiation that we had operated for years were of no great importance; that the real significance was on the shop floor; that the task was to put that matter right, because it was not properly organised, there being no formal machinery; and the Commission put the onus on the directors of companies to get on with this job. If one is fair about the findings of the Donovan Report, whether one accepts it or not, the people who really came in for criticism were not the unions but British management. The Report called for reforms, and for the extension, improvement and expansion of collective bargaining—an interesting point that I will not develop because of the time.
Let me say how these various proposals strike me. When In Place of Strife came out, it showed to me the impatience of the politicians. I should like to describe In Place of Strife as Donovan, plus a cooling-off period, plus ballots, plus penal sanctions. The latter caused the wrangle between the trade union movement and the Labour Government—a sordid wrangle of many months. Finally, the unions persuaded the Government to withdraw the penal sanctions, on the clear understanding of course that the T.U.C. would take over certain responsibilities.
278
I feel very much the same in regard to the present Government's proposals, perhaps even more so. They talk about creating a legal framework. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, in the very first speech yesterday, "What we ask of the unions is to register." I differ very much from some of my colleagues on this point. Speaking as the General Secretary of a Union as well as Chairman of the T.U.C., if I have to recommend registration to my Executive, I shall recommend them to register. I will tell your Lordships why.
For a hundred years the trade unions have been protected so far as the contract of employment is concerned, so long as what they were doing was in furtherance of a trade dispute. This Bill takes away that protection. If we are asked to accept this, the only way a union can recover a protection it has had for a hundred years is by registering, whether it does or does not like registration. There are many things about registration which cause perturbation among trade unionists. We are going to have a fair code of practice in 12 months' time and it is the duty of the Registrar to make sure that the code of practice and the purposes of the Bill are covered by trade union rules.
I am to attend a conference at which many suggested amendments to rules have been put forward by members. I have told them it would be better to leave the rules alone, because if this Bill is passed all the rules will have to be gone through with a fine toothcomb and we shall have to work out how best to adapt the rules to suit the Registrar. The Registrar, who is to be a legal man, may be a decent fellow and may not ask too much from the unions. But he may ask a great deal; and another Government with other ideas, and a new Registrar, could have very serious impact on the trade union movement.
If we do not register, then we are in a completely new situation. We shall no longer have any protection in pursuing a trade dispute, and we should be open to being sued for damages. I do not want to dwell on things that can be discussed later on, but I have already talked with managements about legalising contracts, and we anticipate a situation of great complexity. We generally have a lawyer at our elbows when important

279
agreements are being made. I spent thirteen weeks in America, at Harvard University, where many British businessmen go to the business school, which has running parallel with it a more modest trade union school. I was there to be taught all about the American trade unions. All this legalistic stuff is already there. It creates a heyday for the lawyers. In America, an agreement may comprise fifty or sixty pages. Noble Lords who are employers will know that here an agreement can be made and all of it put on two pages; but to have an agreement that will stand up to legal interpretation is imposing a colossal job on the trade union movement. So, from what I say, I do not think the Government can really complain if the trade unions say that this is an attempt to weaken them.
So far as I can see, the way ahead is a slow, persevering job. I hope that I shall be forgiven when I say this, after all the years that I have been in the trade union movement and all the years that I have been associated with employers. All the people who think that you can get hold of industrial relations, put them in a nice parcel, tie them with a little bow, and say, "That's fine", are really living in a fool's paradise. It is a tough job all the way. The sooner we attempt it, I agree, the better; but if you hope for quick results I do not think you will get them. You certainly will not get them by legislation.
The object should be free negotiations on a tripartite basis between Government, the unions and management. That may sound presumptuous, as if I am putting Government on a level; but it is not so. It is the natural evolution of what Governments have done. They used to keep out of the business and leave it to us. At the moment, I am not sure what is being attempted: there is no income policy, but an attempt to try to do something. I agree that the Government cannot stand aside. Unlike many of my colleagues, I accept that having regard to the number of people that the Government employ, directly or indirectly—5 million, I think it is—and they having taken on all these economic responsibilities, they must be part and parcel in some way to negotiations and collective
280
bargaining in this country. But I suggest that the way is by co-operation, not compulsion, and the method should be voluntarism and very much based on Donovan.
I should like to quote from a communication that I have received from George Woodcock. I cannot say whether he sent it more in sorrow than in anger. It is the Press release that was given to the Press the other day when he resigned from the chairmanship of the Commission on Industrial Relations. He has had years of experience. He was on the Donovan Committee. These are the first sentences of his resignation:
"The Industrial Relations Bill is more concerned with the effects than with the causes of industrial relations. Ever since the publication of the Consultative Document last October I have remained convinced that the principal measures proposed by the Government for the reform of industrial relations are misconceived and will prove to be impracticable."
I go along with that. This Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Shackleton invites the Government to think again. I would say to the Government, as has so often been said to us on this side of the House, "Forget dogma and doctrinaire opinions, which are less than useless in this difficult field of human relations". For all these reasons, I have pleasure in supporting the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Shackleton.
7.4 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, as we reach the end of this debate, we have heard a large number of able and some moving speeches, but I think there can be few that have given us such pleasure—and I certainly speak for myself—as the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein. I have long been a personal admirer of his, and it is good news that he is now taking part in our debates. In saying that, I know that I speak not only for the whole House, but particularly for my colleagues on the Liberal Benches, because the noble Lore, Lord Bernstein, is, above all, a liberally-minded man.
As we on these Benches have surveyed the events in this field since the General Election we have felt a familiar feeling come over us: that of watching two great armies locked in combat for a very small piece of increasingly mud-trampled land, while just around the corner we think we

281
see an Eldorado to which nobody is paying any attention. On the one hand, the Labour Party are seething with indignation about the Bill. In a large number of cases, and particularly in the case of trade unions, this is a perfectly genuine indignation; but in other cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Soper, pointed out, it can hardly be anything but synthetic, seeing the little difference between their proposals when in office and the Bill which is now before us.
From time to time we Liberals get together and say:" How can we make more public impact on this, that or the other proposal?" We have long shared this problem with the Labour Party; and the Labour Party must now be so embarrassed by their performance in Government on this subject of industrial relations that we surely must be able to make some impact. But the person, or the people, who could bring a blush to the face of the Labour Front Bench could bring a blush to the Venus de Milo.
On the other hand, the Conservative Party, not in this House, not in this debate, and not, I would say, the Secretary of State, have over a period of time been making great play with the idea that this Bill is a panacea for all our economic ills. It has been said again and again. In the early days it was often said by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is still being repeated, as was the case during the Arundel and Shoreham by-election by the Conservative candidate. But, unfortunately, the truth is that the Conservative Government are being hard and purposive—if I may apply that epithet to them—about peripheral issues, but doing little about the major issues. They are being hard and purposive about taxation, but what are they doing about prices? They are being hard and purposive about industrial disputes, but they are not doing anything about industrial relations.
The truth is that this is a useful basis for an Act. It is not going to destroy the trade unions and it is not going to solve the economic problems of the nation. Any idea of repealing it is absurd. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, rightly pointed out yesterday, no Government would dream of repealing in its entirely this Bill when it becomes an Act. If the Labour Party should be badgered or moved by the
282
trade unions into giving a pledge to that effect, they will merely be giving one more evidence of that famous death wish which seems to pervade their Party. Although I speak to-day from Benches containing a small number of people, the idea that I am putting forward, the reaction that I am putting forward, that this is a useful basis for an Act which is going to be neither disastrous nor miraculous is one that is shared by a great number of people in this country, and by at least as many as the trade unionists who are listed against it.
What are the arguments against these proposals as the main structure for an Act? There is a small group, of whose views we have heard only a tinge in this debate, who say that they will not take anything from the Tories. I shall say more about that later. But I think the main structure of the Bill, as opposed to the many Amendments which I think are needed, is in the argument about personal liberty against collective solidarity—the words of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, last night, in a speech in which the noble Lord put forward very adequately the case of the Labour Party on this subject. And there was a good and moving speech on this issue by Mr. Brian Walden in Committee in another place which I hope a number of noble Lords have read. But I personally, and I think my colleagues, agree with the speech—I may say the very admirable speech—of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, when he said that to fight this battle was really fighting the war before the last.
My Lords, things have changed. The principles of the Liberal Party have not chanced since that period before the Great War when they were the great defenders of the trade unions. But circumstances have changed; balances of power have changed, and the power of the Liberal Party, such as it is, is always used, we always try to use it, to protect the underprivileged—and the underprivileged to-day are not necessarily the members of the unions. They are the poor who are suffering from the present state of society, the present state of industrial relations. In the present state of society, as Mr. Tony Crosland said in his article this Sunday in the Sunday Times:
"In a free for all airline pilots and doctors come out top, Mr. Clive Jenkins's members second, the car workers a good third, postal

283
workers and railwaymen a bad fourth and the really poor nowhere".
Another side of this argument about individual liberty and collective solidarity was stated by Mr. Orme in another place when in a remarkable exchange with Mr. Huston which I only wish the conventions of this House allowed me to quote verbatim, he held that in some instances group freedom is more important than individual freedom and this I take to be definitely the principle behind a number of the opponents of this Bill. I doubt whether in this case it is a real antithesis that is being put forward. I suspect that in the field of trade unions we can have both—and I think we shall see, if we amend this Bill, that we can. I think also that the balance has changed, and if there ever was a necessity for that point of view it has passed. As a Liberal I reject it outright because this idea that in some instances group freedom is more important than individual freedom is the basis of every tyranny and every totalitarian State that has ever been. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who I see is in his place—
LORD DIAMOND: I am blushing.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I hope that the noble Lord will blush a little more in a moment. The position of the Liberal Party on this Bill, as explained by my honourable friend John Pardoe in another place; as explained by my noble friend, Lord Rochester, I thought very ably yesterday; as explained by me to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, maybe somewhat incoherently over the dinner table, is logical and I should have thought that he might have grasped it. The position is this. We hold that this is a good start for a Bill, but that it needs a tremendous amount of amending, and that we propose to do this. My colleagues in the lower House therefore voted for it on Second Reading. By the time it reached Third Reading they took the view (as a great many people of all Parties have taken the view) that the kind of consideration it had received in the other place was totally derisory. Therefore they voted against the Bill on Third Reading because of the state in which it came to this House. It has now
284
reached this House. Noble Lords may laugh, but I defy them to pick any holes in the logic of that. And in this House I propose to advise my noble friends to vote for the Second Reading.
The really valid argument against this Bill is that it is not another and completely different kind of Bill. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham rightly pointed out, it is not an Industrial Relations Bill it is an Industrial Disputes Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, pointed out that the most important thing to do—and many other noble Lords have said the same—is to improve industrial relations in this country. This Bill will not do this. The Conservative Party have no policy to do this; the Labour Party have no policy to do this, with the honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, whose suggestions which were put forward, not for the first time, in this House yesterday, are of such a vast nature that they are apt to invite ridicule from those who do not think sufficiently about them, yet are well worth investigating.
But the Liberal Party, I would remind noble Lords, has for some time had an industrial relations policy based on industrial democracy, co-partnership, co-ownership and worker-directors—things that were praised in his speech last night by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, in reference to Germany—and particularly works councils, which is something that I hope to see incorporated in this Bill. This is the way forward; this is the Eldorado which we see while you trample this muddy patch of ground in the middle, and which you are neglecting.
I will not go further on this, because it is not the Bill we have; but as a basis for the Bill that we have, on the whole I welcome this one. It will need a great many Amendments. The Secretary of State has shown himself to be a very reasonable man. I think there can be no doubt that his political stature has grown and grown in the handling of this Bill in another place, but I hope he realizes—and if he does not I hope his noble friends on the Front Bench will tell him—that by far the hardest work he has to do on this Bill is only just beginning. We really are going to work on this Bill. We welcome it and will play our full part. I am sad, and I think other noble Lords

285
will be sad, that because the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will be attending to industrial relations himself he will not necessarily he able to give us all his great expertise on this Bill. However, I am glad to say that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will soon be back, and he too has a great amount of experience.
There is not time now to go into the kind of Amendments that we should like to see, except to say that they would undoubtedly be more welcome to the Benches on this side of the House than to many of the Benches opposite. But one particular Amendment in which I am most interested is the suggestion made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, which has not since been picked up I think: that we should so amend the closed shop and agency shop clauses of this Bill that one would be allowed to opt out of being a member of a trade union only for reasons of conscience and not for any other reason. In view of these considerations which I have put before your Lordships, our course on these Benches is I think clear.
First, there is the question of the Motion before the House at the moment. It is a method to enable the Labour Party to vote against the Second Reading without actually voting against the Second Reading. Whether it does this is a matter of dispute between the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and I look forward to the reply to what I thought was a fairly devastating case which the noble and learned Lord put forward: the idea that if one is to take it on its merits as a Motion, the idea that after three years of strong strain outside this House which has been there of, "We won't take an Industrial Relations Bill from the Tories", anything will emerge from consultation in the immediate future, except, on the one hand, a complete demand from the real militants of the trade union movement and, on the other, a Bill rather like this, but significantly amended. But, my Lords, this is indeed exactly what I think we should have—a Bill like this, but significantly amended. Since that is what we intend to do in this House, I have no hesitation in joining my noble friend Lord Rochester in recommending my noble friends to vote against the Motion and for the Bill.
7.20 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, none of us can fail to recognise that this Bill has given rise to much passion and much argument, and, recognising this, I would say that I have felt a certain pride, listening to this long debate in these past two days on a subject where passion lies so close beneath the surface, to be a Member of a House of Parliament where argument and not passion has prevailed. May I also say what pleasure it gave me, as I am sure it gave to all noble Lords, to listen to the admirable maiden speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, and from my noble friend Lord Thomas. I am not just saying this as an idle form of words. I hope that we shall have much more advice from them. They are both men of diverse and very considerable experience.
We may disagree about much in this Bill, but I think I can assert, without fear of undue contradiction, that most of us are at least agreed on one essential point, and that is that legislation of sonic sort is needed and needed soon. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, stated quite categorically in his notable speech yesterday, "Britain needs an industrial relations Act". We need only to glance at to-day's headlines for all of us to know in our heart of hearts that that is in fact the case. I shall not try at this stage to argue at length the case for bringing forward this particular Bill: my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn put the case yesterday comprehensively and with admirable clarity. Nevertheless, in winding up, I should like briefly to remind your Lordships of some of the positive objectives we hope to achieve by this legislation. I shall necessarily be selective.
In the first place, we believe that this Bill will provide a stimulus to positive, effective and just management, and thereby to better industrial relations. Most of us would readily concede that such a stimulus is needed. From these Benches my noble friend Lord Thomas, in his refreshing and astringent maiden speech yesterday, readily conceded this, and so did my noble friends Lord Blakenham, Lord Watkinson, Lord Caldecote, Lord Thorneycroft and Lord Amory, in speeches of very considerable distinction endorsing the principles of this Bill. And

287
so did the noble Lords, Lord Redcliffe-Maud and Lord Plowden, and others, from the Cross-Benches.
The simple truth is that there is much in this Bill which is designed to put management on its mettle: the provisions for procedure agreements; the requirements for disclosure of information; the provisions about unfair dismissal, and so on. And there is notably Clause 2, the clause on which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, quite rightly, laid such great emphasis, the clause which states in positive terms the primary responsibility of management for better industrial relations. The meaning of that particular clause will be driven home by the code of industrial relations practice. My noble friends, Lord Watkinson and Lord Amory, hazarded the guess that the code will emphasise the responsibilities and duties of management. As usual, my noble friends were quite right. The code will indeed lay heavy emphasis on the responsibilities of management: and so, indeed, it should.
In answer to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, posed yesterday, I can assure him that it is my right honourable friend's intention to publish for consultation purposes a preliminary draft of the code within a matter of weeks. I can also confirm that it is his hope that there will be full consultation with all concerned on that draft code, genuine consultation. What I am saying at the outset, and the point which I am underlining, makes nonsense of the claim, repeated too often, at least by implication, in this debate, that this Bill is mere "union bashing". It is nothing of the sort. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, made clear, it is primarily on those who aim to sap and undermine the fabric of our industrial relations, this small minority, that the Bill will bite, where in fact it does bite.
This is shown by what I would take as the second objective of the Bill: that is, to give greater protection and safeguards for individual workers in industry. I instance a few examples. There is the protection from unfair dismissal. There are the safeguards against discrimination on account of trade union membership. There are the safeguards against arbitrary or unfair treatment from unions themselves. There is the longer notice of
288
termination of employment. And there is the clear assertion that no employee may be required to remain at work against his will: in other words, the right to strike is explicitly recognised in this legislation.
Thirdly, the Bill is designed to strengthen, not weaken, the trade union movement in this country. I assert this categorically and with confidence. Again—and I should like to insist on this—it is the reverse of "union bashing". We believe—we may be wrong; noble Lords opposite claim that we are wrong, but I believe that we are right—that under this legislation the development of unions will be strengthened, provided, and provided only, that they are prepared to accept the responsibilities of a registered organisation. May I say here—and he may not like this, coming from me—that I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, had to say about that in a speech of great wisdom and moderation. I would remind your Lordships that trade unions will retain the right to call strikes provided, and provided only, that the strikes are not adjudged unfair under the terms of this legislation. In addition, I would also recall to your Lordships that union members will be entitled—and entitled as of right—to engage in trade union activities without fear of discrimination from their employers.
Fourthly, the Bill will establish an entirely new system of industrial jurisdiction. This is an area where this layman at least, like angels, should perhaps fear to tread. But to me, at least, the new system which is proposed under this Bill, with its informal procedures, with its easy accessibility, with the membership of the courts consisting not only of lawyers but also of people with experience on both sides of industry, seems far better equipped to deal with legal problems which inevitably arise out of industrial relations than anything we have had in this country before.
In sum, my Lords, it is our belief—right or wrong—that over a period of time this Bill should do much to strengthen. to buttress and to encourage the resolution of industrial disputes in this country, and with that bring a more hopeful climate of industrial relations and greater prosperity and, I hope, a breakthrough into a higher plateau of economic performance which has been denied to this country for far too long.

289
In view of some of the things which have been said in this long debate, I should like to make it clear that it will not provide an instant panacea. As my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft pointed out, we have never claimed that it would. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has always made it crystal clear that the real benefits of the Bill will be longer term and climatic. But this does not mean—and here I am answering a point which again was put to me quite fairly by the noble Lord, Lord Deacourt-Smith, yesterday—that we shall not see more immediate benefits. We have heard for example, from sources as various as my noble friend Lord Watkinson and Mr. Jack Jones, that from their different angles they are proposing to get their procedures into better shape forthwith. And I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, that from the moment this Bill bites, countless employees up and down the country will be protected as they are not now p.7otected against instant and arbitrary dismissal.
I now turn, if I may, to some other criticisms of the Bill which have been voiced in this inevitably long debate. I do not wish to stand for too long between your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—and we shall all be glad to see him on his feet again both literally and metaphorically in a few minutes' time. Nor do I wish to stand too long between your Lordships and a possible vote. I shall therefore confine myself to some of the main criticisms made against this Bill, some of which I have already, I hope, covered by implication.
It has in the first place been argued—and of course not only from the Benches opposite—that the banning of the "closed shop" will erode union power and undermine union solidarity. I accept straight away that there are sincere doubts held, and not only by noble Lords opposite, about this part of the Bill. At the same time, I should like to say that in my present state of knowledge I do not accept that there is any real substance in those criticisms. For example, under the agency shop provisions, the right of any worker to be or to remain a "free rider", able to avoid contributing to the cost of the services provided by a union, will disappear. Employers will be permitted, indeed encouraged, to use
290
their best endeavours to persuade employees to belong to the recognised union. I should again emphasise that the code of practice, as I understand it, will most certainly emphasise this point, and emphasise its positive terms.
However, if what the unions are asking the Government for is the opportunity to compel every single worker to belong to the appropriate union, because without this, in their view, unionism cannot effectively survive, then it is clear that this is a proposition which this Government cannot accept. But, of course, the Government are firmly convinced that when employers and unions come fully to understand the agency shop concept—and it is a new and unfamiliar concept—they will appreciate the great advantage which will derive from the proposed arrangements, and the incentives which the provisions of the Bill will provide for union membership and more stable industrial relations. In any event, the Government see no need to apologise for the fact that they seek to preserve the freedom of the individual to join, or not to join, what have always been, after all, voluntary associations of workpeople. Here I must say that I found myself in a considerable measure of agreement with the general tenor of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on this particular aspect of the Bill.
The Bill has also been criticised as "legalism run mad". Some noble Lords have sought to argue that the law has little or no place in industrial relations; that the course of those relations lies between man and man, and that laws alone cannot change fundamental human behaviour. I would of course grant straight away that our system of industrial relations is at present characterised by a deliberate abstention or withdrawal of the law. I would grant, too, that this traditional non-intervention of the law in industrial relations has until quite recently been widely supported in this country, as my noble friend Lord Amory pointed out. But I sincerely believe that we should be wrong to oppose legislation in this field in principle. We all recognise that in the final analysis industrial relations are human relations. We all know (and here I very much agreed with the words of the noble Lord, Lord

291
Bernstein) that in the last resort what we are dealing with in this area are the expectations and the livelihood, the habits, the prides, and indeed the prejudices, of individual citizens. But we believe, and we believe firmly, that the law is in fact able to help in changing attitudes and in changing behaviour.
May I instance as an example the Race Relations Act. When that legislation was first mooted by the previous Administration, many people suggested—many noble Lords from this side of the House suggested—that we could not legislate in the field of race relations because race relations were human relations and no law could change what people felt or did in a field so peculiarly sensitive as that of race relations. I remember that many noble Lords opposite were keen that this legislation should be put on the Statute Book. I am prepared to concede that they were right. If in fact it was right, as was argued yesterday by both the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Southwark and the Bishop of Blackburn, for our society to put on record the standards it felt should be observed in the field of race relations, so, my Lords, it is equally right that society should similarly lay down appropriate standards—guidelines, as my noble friend Lord Amory termed them—in the conduct of industrial relations.
Further, it is argued that if we introduce a legal framework into industrial relations everyone will be rushing to the courts all the time, and that the legal provisions which we are seeking to introduce are in any event an intolerable restraint on the activities of ordinary working people. But we should remember that there is a very large number of Statutes which affect all of us in many fields of our daily lives. This does not mean that the ordinary citizen goes to law at the drop of a hat. In the case of legislation dealing with race relations, the analogy which I have quoted, there is a particular reason why there has been relatively so little litigation. That reason can be expressed in one word—"conciliation". I should like to remind your Lordships that this Bill is studded with references to the need for conciliation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has stressed time and time again that much of the formal and often com-
292
plicated machinery of this Bill—and I freely admit that much of the formal structure of this Bill is complicated—is for use only as a last resort when voluntary procedures have failed.
Conciliation and "voluntarism" (to use the jargon) are in fact two of the main pillars which support the framework of this Bill. There is, for instance, the requirement on the National Industrial Relations Court to ensure that the parties have availed themselves of opportunities for conciliation. There is the requirement, before the Court requests the C.I.R. to examine a recognition dispute, that it should satisfy itself that the parties have made adequate attempts to settle it themselves on a voluntary basis. There is the requirement laid on the Secretary of State himself to conciliate in such disputes before an application may even be made to the Court.
There is too, my Lords, the provision for the appointment of a new kind of conciliation officer in the Department of Employment, who will be required to promote a settlement of individual complaints, notably about unfair dismissal, before they ever go to an industrial tribunal. It is our hope, and it is indeed our belief, that the voluntary procedures will continue to be used wherever possible so that disputes are settled without recourse to the law. But equally it is our view that the law must be there in the last resort as a "fail-safe" measure, to repeat the striking phrase of my noble friend Lord Mills, to set out standards of behaviour and to provide the remedies where voluntary methods fail and are seen to fail.
So much for the Bill itself. In conclusion, I should now like to turn to our handling of it in your Lordships' House. First, I must make it clear how much I welcome—and I am now speaking really more as the Leader of your Lordships' House than in a Party capacity—some words which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, used yesterday. There was a great deal in his forceful speech with which I disagreed, but nevertheless I should like to say to him and to your Lordships' House that it was a speech of distinction and a speech of reason. I was particularly glad to hear him say, speaking with all the weight that his position at the Despatch Box opposite gave him, that the Opposition had no

293
intention of obstructing this Bill for obstruction's sake; no intention of conducting a. filibuster on it. And I was equally glad that this note which was struck by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, at the outset was subsequently echoed and re-echoed by noble Lords from all quarters of your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I think it only right that I should respond in kind, so let me say just this. If restraint is in fact exercised by noble Lords opposite, it will be matched by noble Lords who speak for the Government. Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, expressed the hope that the Government would listen "sympathetically and intelligently ", I think was his phrase, to the arguments. Sympathy—I cannot absolutely guarantee that. Intelligence—it would be presurnptuous, at least for me, to promise that, but what I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, and the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, is that it will be our intention—our considered intention—to look in a "cool, critical and unbiased" way (to use the expression of my noble friend Lord Blakenham) at constructive suggestions advanced in the course of our further debates on this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, suggested that there was much that was uncertain, much that was inadequate, much that was impracticable, and much that was unjust in the Bill before your Lordships' House. Let me say how I approach this Bill. If there are in fact places where it speaks with an uncertain voice, let us import new certainty: into it. If there are places where it is demonstrated to be inadequate, let us render it more adequate. If there are places where its provisions can be shown to be impracticable, let us make them practicable. And, my Lords, if it can be demonstrated, and demonstrated beyond a peradventure, that any of its provisions bear hardly, either on sections of our community or on individuals, let us do all we can to make those provisions fair and just.
Of course, this Bill is not only controversial; it is both long and controversial, and this clearly faces us with something of a practical problem. But it is a practical problem which we have man-
294
aged to surmount in the past without undue difficulty, albeit with a good deal of sweat and tears and midnight oil. I would recall to your Lordships that this Bill as it comes to us is 160 pages long; Mrs. Barbara Castle's hydra-headed transport monster was 267 pages long, and the London Government Bill, of which some of us have sweet but poignant memories, was 228 pages long. But we managed to deal with both those Bills, not unsatisfactorily. By the same token, I am sure that there will be time enough for us to give equally full and constructive consideration to the Bill before your Lordships at Second Reading now, and I should like to make it clear that I for one am very willing at any time to discuss with noble Lords opposite how best we can arrange our programme of business in order to ensure this. In sum, my Lords, I should like to endorse what I think were the words spoken by a noble Lord yesterday—I forget, I am afraid, who it was: "Another place's extremity is your Lordships' opportunity". I shall do all I can for my part to help your Lordships to seize that opportunity.
It is against that background that in conclusion I should like your Lordships to consider how we can deal with the two Motions before your Lordships' House: the Motion for a Second Reading and the Motion standing in the name of the, noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. If, as I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, presses his Motion to a Division and if, as I am inclined to anticipate, his Motion is not successful, my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack will put the Motion for a Second Reading to your Lordships' House. I should like to express the hope that noble Lords opposite, even those noble Lords who feel most strongly against this Bill, like the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, who was in very good form, I thought, this afternoon, will not divide your Lordships' House on the Motion for Second Reading.
I do not wish to make unduly heavy weather of the constitutional arguments. All I would do is to remind noble Lords that both main Parties have accepted the principle that this House should not normally challenge the principle of Government Bills sent up from the elected

295
Chamber. I would merely like to emphasise, quietly, but nevertheless with such force as I can command, that in my view it would be in the best interests of Parliament that we should adhere to that principle to-day. I am reinforced in that view by my recollection of what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said as recently as January 21 when he stated: "On constitutional grounds we do not as a rule vote on Second Reading". I am fortified, too, by my recollection of what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said on the Second Reading only a few weeks ago of the Coal Industry Bill—a Bill for which he clearly had no particular affection—and indeed what he said in his speech earlier this afternoon.
I turn finally to the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I should like to congratulate him straightaway and most warmly on the constitutional procedural ingenuity which he has shown in "cooking it up", but he cannot really expect us on these Benches—indeed he cannot expect noble Lords in other quarters of the House—to "fall for it", despite the words of sweet reasonableness which fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, in moving it yesterday. As my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has stated, the Motion argues that we should adjourn our debate on Second Reading on three main grounds. It is argued, in the first place, that the proceedings on the Bill have been curtailed in another place. It is perhaps hardly for us to comment on how another place proceeds, but I would suggest that if the proceedings in another place were curtailed this was in certain measure due to the attitude adopted by the Opposition there. And I fear I must go further. In my view, the tactics of the Opposition in another place have done no good for the standing of Parliament.
In any event, there is a certain amount of fiction in the argument that this Bill has come to us in very large measure totally undiscussed. As my noble and learned friend made clear earlier this afternoon, debate in another place ranged very widely, and many of the clauses of the Bill, technically undiscussed in Committee, were in fact very fully covered in debate. But be that as it may. It is
296
argued, in the second place, that the Bill is causing grave division within industry and in the nation. I would not seek to sustain for one moment an argument that this Bill is not a contentious Bill. But my belief—and I noticed that I had here the support of both my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont—is that this Bill commands far wider support from the great mass of our population, and indeed many trade unionists, than noble Lords opposite choose to admit.
Thirdly, the Motion calls for a pause in order that the Government may seek agreed solutions to the problems of industrial relations free from the conditions on which they have so far insisted. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment—not the most unreasonable of men—has made it clear time and time again that he was ready for talks with the trade unions on this legislation. It was not he who slammed the door on consultation. My right honourable friend has again made it clear that he is very ready for consultation with the trade unions on the proposed code of industrial relations practice, and I have his specific authority to reaffirm that assurance here and now and categorically.
But, my Lords, in asking for further consultations free from the conditions on which we have so far insisted, I can in truth only asume that the Opposition are asking the Government to abandon the main principles on which this Bill is based, the eight pillars of my right honourable friend's wisdom. They are in fact asking us, in a Motion moved with much sweet reasonableness but decked with specious argument, to kill the Bill. They are asking us to suffocate our own child with our own hands. The last Government were prepared to cut and run from their responsibilities. We are not. I must tell noble Lords opposite that they are asking here too much of us, because we are being asked as a Government to abdicate from our responsibilities, to lose our credibility at home and to cause those abroad to doubt the firmness of our basic purpose. That may be the Opposition's wish, but it is certainly not the Government's intention.
I believe, and I believe that the majority of your Lordships' House

297
believe, that this legislation is long overdue. I believe, and I believe that the majority of your Lordships' House believe, that this Bill in its main principles is right, and I would remind your Lordships that this Government, newly elected, has a fresh and clear mandate to bring forward this legislation. In these circumstances, I ask your Lordships to reject the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, decisively and with a clear majority.
7.54 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like first to apologise to your Lordships for not being present during what was undoubtedly a very outstanding debate yesterday. I should apologise indeed for taking part in the debate at all, were it not for the fact that I have myself been very much the author, along with my colleagues, of the Motion which we are now debating, and I did not want anyone to have any doubt as to the seriousness of my opposition to this Bill and my dislike of its contents.
But before I go further along these lines may I say to noble Lords—to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and others who were kind enough to express regrets at my absence yesterday—that, thanks to powerful new pills (not the Pill), the infection that I suffered is more or less under control, and my spirits are rather high at the moment because the acerbity of the last remarks of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition have in fact—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Leader of the House.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sorry; it is a syndrome from which we both suffer at one time or another. I was about to say that the acerbity of the last remarks of the noble Earl the Leader of the House will encourage me to say fairly forcibly what I have to say.
I must first of all confess to one weakness. My predecessor as Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, used to suffer greatly from irritation with the Liberals, and must say that the speeches we have heard from them have irritated more than anything I have heard in this debate. I find it intolerable that the noble Lord should talk about synthetic indignation. No-
298
body on that side of the House has talked about this.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I was quoting verbatim the noble Lord, Lord Soper, behind me.
LORD SHACKLETON: It was the way the noble Lord said it. He made some extraordinary remarks. He did say that the Liberals got together now and again, and I gather that, as a result, in another place they voted for the Second Reading and then, for reasons that were not entirely clear, against the Third Reading; and they are now going to vote for the Second Reading in this House, in the absence of their noble Leader, who, on the occasion when we withdrew our Bill, made the remark to me:
"I would ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, whether he would use his influence with the Conservative Party to persuade them that their own policy of getting even tougher with the unions is only driving faster along the road in the wrong direction."
It appears that the Liberals have now outdistanced their own Leader in this matter, and one of the most ominous remarks in the noble Lord's speech was that the Liberals intend to play a full part in the Committee stage.
My Lords, having now, I hope, discharged, with not quite the precision of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, my traditional role in regard to the Liberals, may I go on to say that I think the standard of debate has been extremely high, and the standard of tolerance and good sense has been very valuable indeed. I managed to read all the speeches that appeared in Hansard yesterday, except those that were made around midnight— and I am told that some very good speeches were made around midnight. I hope that on later occasions I shall be here round about midnight and after, as I expect many of us will have to be in the course of the next few weeks. We are not deceived that the Government are likely to accept the radical changes that we should like to make with regard to this Bill, but I shall say something in a moment about the Motion and about the slightly diverse views expressed, not for the first time, by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and his noble friend the Leader of the House. We are almost back to the Weimar Republic again, which I know caused

299
some embarrassment on a previous occasion.
But before I come to the more contentious part of my speech, may I say—and I am sure all noble Lords will agree—how delighted we were by the two maiden speakers, my noble friend Lord Bernstein, with his very great experience, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, whose speech I did not hear, but it was obviously regarded highly. There have been a number of notable speeches from all parts of the House. There has been a great deal of variety of opinion, and there has been great sincerity. We had two very striking speeches to-day from the noble Lords, Lord McCorquodale of Newton and Lord Burntwood, both former Members of the Commons and both, in either House, the two largest Members in Parliament; their speeches were admirable, as were so many others.
I must say next, so that there should be no misunderstanding, that I have known of no Bill in modern times, certainly since the war, that has caused such bitter controversy and such involved discussion about its expected effects as the one that is now before the House. It is not possible for me now to go through in detail the various criticisms we have of the Bill. I am perfectly prepared to accept, as I am sure are all noble Lords on this side of the House, that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and many others, like the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and even the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, with his somewhat mischievous approach on occasions, are totally sincere in believing that this is a good Bill, in the national interest and in the interests of the working man. I shall seek to demonstrate why we are doubtful whenever the Tory Party say that they are doing something for the working man. Our doubts are based not purely on history but on the somewhat confused arguments they have used in support of the case they have put forward.
In this House we are faced with a dilemma, and the dilemma is the more acute because so much of this Bill—and this point is referred to in my Motion—was never considered in detail in the Commons. Let us not deceive ourselves. We have not been deceiving ourselves very much in this debate, and we know that all Governments guillotine; and we know, too, that all Oppositions get very
300
indignant when there is guillotining of a Bill. It is not for us to discuss how they conduct their affairs in another place; though the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I thought went rather beyond what was reasonable in criticising the way the Opposition used their time; but I really regard it as only the voice of inexperience with regard to another place that led him to make those remarks. I cannot recall a timetable procedure—and I have sat in another place where the Tories voted endlessly on the Transport Bill in 1947–48—which has produced a result in which 111 clauses were not specifically discussed.
The noble Earl may say, "Well, they were discussed generally in debate." But, in addition, I cannot recall when there was no attempt to agree a timetable. The most striking example—and I put this to noble Lords opposite, because we really have a job on our hands here—was the Report stage, in which the Opposition had no chance to debate any of the Amendments, which the Opposition itself would normally want to do. All five days were, by Government decision, virtually devoted to discussing new and complicated clauses that the Government had brought into the Bill, and a mere fraction of the last day was devoted to Amendments. Here again there were 55 Government Amendments and, of these, 42 were never discussed at all and are not even in the Bill in front of us to-day; they have got to be brought into the Bill.
The Government are putting a very heavy burden on this House. This is a Bill of profound constitutional importance. We shall obviously do our best—that is, if, as I think is not unlikely, the House does not support the Motion I have put before it and it will be very depressing to think how long we shall have to sit. My noble friends have said, and made perfectly clear, that there will be no filibustering, and I am sure noble Lords opposite accept that we mean this. There will be plenty for us to discuss without even beginning to want to waste time. There are months of work ahead of us.
It is quite impossible for me—although I appreciate the noble Earl's offer, and much as I realise that this House has to run, in the absence of a Speaker, by sensible co-operation—to agree, or see any

301
prospect of agreement, on any timetable. I do not know how long this Bill will take. I say quite seriously that if we are to discharge our duties—and this is not a threat; I hope we shall not have to do it—we shall have to be prepared to sit for a long period. This is not a threat, and I hope nobody will say, if we do not sit into August, that this is a threat that is not fulfilled. I am only saying that we must face the consequences of trying to get this Bill right.
A great deal will depend on the Government's willingness to listen to the advice of your Lordships. The Government were reluctant to listen to the advice of others who were expert in another place. But here, with the great wealth of knowledge, there will be plenty of pressure on them to accept Amendments which they were reluctant to accept in another place. Practically every speaker on either side is expecting the Government to advance a great deal further on the subject of the closed shop. This is not a view held just on this side of the House; it was a view which was expressed from the Episcopal Bench and it was a view which was expressed by noble Lords on the Government side who have practical experience of industrial relations.
As most speakers have made clear, the equating of the right not to join a union with the right to join a union is absolutely nonsense, as Donovan pointed out. The Government have begun to move on this issue, but what they have done is still not satisfactory from the standpoint, even of unions such as Equity who have an absolutely crying need to have their requirements met in this matter. We shall expect a real advance from the Government on this point, and I am quite sure that when they have heard the arguments further they will personally be convinced. Providing there is some chance of your Lordships having some influence on what is unquestionably the most obstinate Government this country has had for a long while, we shall get down to it and see whether we can make the Bill a good deal more tolerable, even harmless and possibly useful.
There are many aspects of the Bill which I should like to talk about, but the arguments have been so fully put that I do not think there is any need for me to add to them. The basic object-
302
tion to this Bill—and this is the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, and other noble Lords have made, and a point which appears to have escaped the Liberal Party but certainly has caught the attention of dispassionate observers—is that the Bill deals with symptoms rather than causes. The Government and the public look at industrial trouble and say, "There are more strikes than there were last year. There are more strikes than there were ten years ago. We must deal with this". But they look at the symptoms, and not at the causes.
But, my Lords, in the first place, the present situation with regard to strikes—and nobody can be happy about it, although again I think we sell ourselves short in the world by talking as much as we do about them—is reflected in nearly every country. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, in an interesting account of the causes of strikes, referred to strikes over unfair dismissals and other causes. But the pattern has changed in this last year or two: now it is inflation that is causing the strikes; it is the absence of an effective incomes policy. It is no good my pretending that the previous Government's incomes policy was entirely satisfactory or successful. Let us face facts on this. If only this Government would admit that they have no effective policy in regard to this matter, and would stop pursuing a policy in regard to the trade unions which will not make the slightest difference to the causes and problems that are leading to present-day strikes!
Secondly, despite some of the remarks of noble Lords, this Bill runs counter, in some of the most important respects, to the principal recommendations and conclusions of the Donovan Commission. Again, I think it was the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who said that it went a bit further than Donovan. That is rather a niece of meiosis, because it seems to me that in certain respects it goes entirely counter to Donovan. That is most notably so in the most controversial part of the whole Bill, which is in regard to the power to make collective agreements, including those at shop-floor level, legally binding. It is necessary to emphasise this, because some noble Lords will not have

303
heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan (though I think his speech ought to be compulsory reading for anyone who did not hear it), whose Report said:
"If therefore existing collective agreements, or existing procedure agreements, were to be made into legal contracts this would have to be done"—
and this is what the Government propose—
"by a statute attaching the force of law to the terms of a bargain, contrary to the wishes of the parties. This would be an unprecedented step and a step wholly at variance with the principles of the common law which apply to the law of contract. Since the law of contract exists to give effect to the wishes of the parties some strong justification must be sought at the outset for a law designed to set those wishes aside and to impose on the parties a relationship which they do not desire."
My argument here about Donovan is that if agreements are to become legal, the probability is that there will be many fewer agreements or that there will be no agreements at all. This really is a serious argument which has not been met by any of the Government spokesmen.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt on that point, because I think it is extremely important? The passage that he has quoted relates to existing collective agreements, whereas the Bill relates to future collective agreements after it has become law.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is what horrifies me. The arguments apply to the future just as much as to the present. It means that the practical sort of agreement that may be made, and is constantly made, in industry will not be made, or that it will have to be verbal. You will even be able to have a note on it. Every agreement that is made will have to carry a note at the bottom stating, "This is not a legal agreement"—and this is much more likely, because it is spelt out in that way, to incline people not to keep the agreement. Here again I would draw attention to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, said. I do not want to go on about this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, must be suffering a little from being in the position of a prophet who is constantly quoted from both sides.
304
As I said, this is an obstinate Government. They are pure-minded according to their lights, but their lights are not ours. Government spokesmen, just because they are conscious of the purity of their motives, say that if only the trade unions would trust them; their intentions are noble and, despite the Budget, they are all for the working man. But their actions really speak differently, and they cannot understand why it is that so many people in the trade unions and in the Labour Party, while regarding them as honourable people, simply do not trust the actions, and indeed the somewhat brutal actions, that they take in the matter.
Let me give a single example, with which the noble Earl is himself familiar, of arbitrary action by this Government. I refer to the sacking of Professor Hugh Clegg as Chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD SHACKLETON: The fact is that the Government sacked him. Why was he sacked? He served on the Scamp Committee. He need not have done so; he did it as his duty. He was regarded by both the official side and the trade union side of the Civil Service as an entirely dispassionate and appropriate Chairman. It is actions of that sort that lead to the feeling of distrust.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, but since he has introduced—I do not quite know why—this particular case, I feel that I should put the Record right in two respects. In the first place, the noble Lord said that Professor Hugh Clegg was sacked. The position is that he was on a three-year appointment, which was due to run out in March and which required the assentment of both parties in order that it should run on. The noble Lord asked whey he was sacked. He was not sacked. But the point was that in order to have successful arbitration—I am sure the noble Lord will agree with this—an arbitrator must command the confidence of both sides. The position was—and this is no reflection on a person of great personal distinction, Professor Clegg, or on his intellectual attainments—that Professor Clegg did not have the confidence of both sides.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will not pursue this further, but that is a most serious statement and one that I can only say I should want to challenge on another occasion. I really think it is a most astonishing remark, and it is the sort of thing that causes anxiety.
Then there is this easy assumption that the trade unions are much stronger than they really are; and of course the mass media never cease to make the most of it. I do not want to detain the House any longer. I shall give only one other example of the consequences of the Government's action by this Bill. They have killed the Commission on Industrial Relations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, said, "Thank goodness that is going on ". But the Government have completely changed its role. The concept of the Commission on Industrial Relations was of a conciliating body, a good will broker, almost like a marriage broker, giving advice. Now it is going to have to take on statutory duties of a kind which may require it to make recommendations to the Court—which the Court will, in fact, have to enforce—to impose procedure agreements on both sides of industry. Either side—either the employers or the trade unions—will have the power to ask for an agreement, and either side will have to accept it; it will be imposed. The nature of the Corn-mission has been changed.
I want now to turn to the remarks of the noble Earl, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, about the Motion. First of all, I think I have demonstrated that the procedure that has been followed in another place means that the Bill has been very inadequately discussed. It may be that some of us have views. If there had been a reform of this House, there might even have been other changes by which complex measures of this sort could be given the discussion that they should have. I think there is no doubt about that. There is also no doubt that, however much the Government may claim that they have the support of the majority of people in the country—and that has yet to be demonstrated—this Bill is causing grave division in industry, and it is causing great opposition among people who are of great importance to the future progress of this country; namely, the trade union leadership at all levels.
306
It is also without doubt—although the noble and learned Lord and the noble Earl did not deal with this aspect—that no attempt has been made to discuss with the trade unions the provisions of this Bill. The Bill was imposed on them. The Consultative Document was published and they were asked to comment in a very short period, provided that they accepted it. That is not consultation. It is the purpose of this Motion to ask the Government to think again, because, in the end, some sort of compromises will be needed in these fields. It is no use taking up a strong position if you are not going to succeed in what you are hoping to achieve.
I am prepared to say here and now that this Bill will not succeed in the purposes that the Government are seeking for it, in which case it may well be that we ought to take the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, and let it go through so that it can be demonstrated that it will not succeed. But, my Lords, this will do damage to industry, and I therefore think we should be well advised, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham suggested, to take a little time to allow the Government, even at this last moment, to have discussions. They will not do so because abroad they do not want to appear weak—again, as always, showing this sort of devotion to strong Government. They will not do so because they really do not want to argue the case.
My Lords, the one thing on which I must disagree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is that this is equivalent to a Motion that the Bill be read this day six months. It is not. I would tell him, in case he has not had time to do his research, that there is a perfectly respectable precedent for this Motion. In 1948, the then Leader of the House moved that the debate on the Parliament Bill be adjourned. It was adjourned while discussions took place, and four months later the debate was resumed. On this occasion we have gone rather further and explained on the Order Paper why we want the debate adjourned; so that this is an improvement, I hope.
It will be perfectly possible for the Government to have their discussions and then to go on with the Bill. We have urged this course previously. The most

307
pressing need for this country at the moment is an effective incomes policy to deal with inflation. We know that this Bill will have no short-term effect, and therefore I would seriously ask any of your Lordships, other than the great majority, as I hope, of the Labour Party who are inclined to support this Motion, to bear in mind that in voting for the Motion they are in no way voting against the Second Reading of the Bill.
My Lords, much more could be said. The Government are embarking on a course which I believe will not yield the benefits that they expect. It is not yielding those benefits in other countries. It is certainly not yielding them in America or Australia, from where I have
I recently returned, where they have the most legal system in the world. There the thing is breaking down; union fines are not being paid; and they are now beginning to look at our system, which of course is now being altered in this arbitrary way by the Government. I beg the Government to think again. I do not expect that they will. I can only say that if this Bill gets a Second Reading to-night we shall be in for a very long and a very hot summer, and we may be sitting in August.
8.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 248.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hall, V.

Royle, L.

Arwyn, L.

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hirshfield, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bowden, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Silkin, L.

Brown, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindgren, L.

Snow, L.

Burntwood, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Soper, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Sorensen, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Stocks, Bs.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Maelor, L.

Stonham, L.

Collison, L.

Mais, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Milford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Moyle, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

White, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Pargiter, L.

Williamson, L.

Durham, L. Bp.

Peddie, L.

Willis, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Platt, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummer, Bs. L.

George-Brown, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gifford, L.

Raglan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Atholl, D.

Bourne, L.

Abinger, L.

Auckland, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Ailsa, M.

Balerno, L.

Bradford, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Balfour, E.

Braye, L.

Albemarle, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Brecon, L.

Aldenham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Brentford, V.

Aldington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brooke and Warwick, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belstead, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Allerton, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Alport, L.

Bessborough, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Bethell, L.

Buchan, E.

Amory, V.

Blackburn, L.Bp.

Carrick, E.

Ampthill, L.

Bolton, L.

Carrington, L.

Arran, E.

Boothby, L.

Cawley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Boston, L.

Chandos, V.

Chelmer, L.

Harlech, L.

Reigate, L.

Chesham L.

Harris, L.

Rennell, L.

Chester, L.Bp.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rhyl, L.

Chichester, L.Bp.

Hastings, L.

Ridley, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Hatherton, L.

Robbins, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hawke, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Coleraine, L.

Headfort, M.

Rochdale, V.

Colgrain, L.

Helsby, L.

Rochester, L.Bp.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hertford, M.

Rochester, L.

Colyton, L.

Hindlip, L.

Rockley, L.

Conesford, L.

Hives, L.

Rootes, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hood, V.

Rosslyn, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Howe, E.

Rothes, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton Foster, Bs.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Courtown, E.

IIford, L.

Sackville, L.

Coventry, L.Bp.

Inchyra, L.

St Aldwyn, E [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Inglewood, L.

St Helens, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Jellicoe, E (L. Privy Seal).

St. Oswald, L.

Crathorne, L.

Jessel, L.

Sandford, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sandys, L.

Croft, L.

Killearn, L.

Savile, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kilmany, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Selsdon, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Davidson, V.

Leicester, L.Bp.

Shaftesbury, E.

De Clifford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sharp, Bs.

De L'Isle, V.

Liverpool, E.

Sherfield, L.

Denham, L.

Lloyd, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Deramore, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Somers, L.

Downe, V.

Loudoun, C.

Southwark, L.Bp.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Spencer, E.

Dulverton, L.

Luke, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Dundee, E.

Lytton, E.

Strang, L.

Ebbisham, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Eccles, V.

McFadzean, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Effingham, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mancroft, L.

Sudeley, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Margadale, L.

Suffield, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Swansea, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swaythling, L.

Essex, E.

Mersey, V.

Tangley, L.

Exeter, M.

Mills, V.

Terrington, L.

Falkland, V.

Milne, L.

Teviot, L.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Teynham, L.

Ferrier, L.

Monck, V.

Thomas, L.

Forres, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Furness, V.

Mottistone, L.

Townshend, M.

Gage, V.

Mountevans, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Garner, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Truro, L.Bp.

Gladwyn, L.

Moyne, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Goschen, V. [Teller.].

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Vestey, L.

Gowrie, E.

Netherthorpe, L.

Vivian, L.

Grantchester, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Gray, L.

Norwich, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Greenway, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Grenfell, L.

Pender, L.

Watkinson, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Plowden, L.

Weir, V.

Grimthorpe, L.

Poltimore, L.

Wigram, L.

Hacking, L.

Poole, L.

Willingdon, M.

Hailes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L (L Chancellor)

Reading, M.

Wise, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Wolverton, L.

Hankey, L.

Redesdale, L.

Yarborough, E.

Hanworth, V.

Redmayne, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Harcourt, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

8.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 224; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Abinger, L.

Durham, L. Bp.

Merrivale, L.

Ailsa, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mersey, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Eccles, V.

Mills, V.

Albemarle, E.

Effingham, E.

Milne, L.

Aldenham, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Aldington, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monck, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Allerton, L.

Essex, E.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Alport, L.

Exeter, M.

Mottistone, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falkland, V.

Mountevans, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Moyne, L.

Atholl, D.

Forres, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue E.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Balerno, L.

Furness, V.

Netherthorpe, L.

Balfour, E.

Garner, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Beauchamp, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Norwich, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Platt, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grantchester, L.

Plowden, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gray, L.

Poole, L.

Bethell, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reading, M.

Bolton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Boston, L.

Hacking, L.

Redmayne, L.

Bourne, L.

Hailes, L.

Reigate, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone (L. Chancellor.)

Rennell, L.

Bradford, E.

Robbins, L.

Brecon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Robertson of Oakndge, L.

Brentford, V.

Harcourt, V.

Rochdale, V.

Brooke and Warwick, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hastings, L.

Rochester, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hatherton, L.

Rockley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hawke, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Buchan, E.

Headfort, M.

Rothes, E.

Cawley, L

Helsby, L

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Chelmer, L

Hertford, M

Sackville, L

Chesham, L.

Hindlip, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chester, L. Bp.

Hives, L.

St. Helens, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Hood, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Howe, E.

Sandford, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hylton Foster, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ilford, L.

Savile, L.

Colgrain, L.

Inchyra, L.

Selkirk, E.

Colyton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Selsdon, L.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kemsley, V.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Killearn, L.

Sharp, Bs.

Cottesloe, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sherfield, L.

Courtown, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Somers, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Crawshaw, L.

Liverpool, E.

Spencer, E.

Croft, L.

Lonsdale. E.

Stonehaven, V.

Cromartie, E.

Lothian, M.

Strang, L.

Cullen Ashbourne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Davidson, V.

Luke, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

De Clifford, L.

Lytton, E.

Denham, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Deramore, L.

McFadzean, L.

Suffield, L.

Derwent, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Swansea, L.

Downe, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Swaythling, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tangley, L.

Dulverton, L.

Margadale, L.

Terrington, L.

Teviot, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Wigram, L.

Teynham, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhevie, Bs.

Willingdon, M.

Thomas, L.

Vivian, L.

Windlesham, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Wise, L.

Thurlow, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Wolverton, L.

Townshend, M.

Watkinson, V.

Yarborough, E.

Trevelyan, L.

Weir, V.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Truro, L. Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Milford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Blyton, L.[Teller]

Plummer, Bs.

Willis, L.

Brockway, L.

Popplewell, L.[Teller.]

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Slater, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gifford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MINERAL WORKINGS BILL [H.L.]
9.3 p.m.
Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 30) Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

KESTEVEN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Brought from the Commons read la, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at four minutes past nine o'clock.