Sitting of 2 February 1972

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BATH CORPORATION BILL
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
    SOLIHULL CORPORATION BILL
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday, 10th February.
  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
    NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIAN LAND COMPANY LIMITED ORDER CONFIRMATION
    Mr. Gordon Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the New Zealand and Australian Land Company Limited. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 77.]
  PETITION

    Capital Punishment
    Mr. Miscampbell: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition, in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), on behalf of our constituents.
    The Petition is for the return of capital punishment for premeditated murder.
    The Petition concludes in the customary way, with the words
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    Sir G. Nabarro: The wrapping of the Petition explains that it contains 80,000 signatures. The hon. Gentleman can add my name to it and make it 80,001.
    To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Health Services (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the consultations he has now had with interested parties following the publication of the White Paper, "The Reorganisation of the Health Services in Scotland".
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): The White Paper has been the subject of wide consultation. Written observations have been received from over 140 bodies and individuals, and in addition a number of topics have been the subject of detailed consideration with local authority, National Health Service and professional interests. The various comments received have been taken into account in the preparation of the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill, introduced in another place last month.
    Mr. Hughes: Do the replies which have been received show disenchantment with certain aspects of the over-centralisation of the Bill? May we have an assurance that the Bill will be amended when it eventually reaches this House? Is it not disgraceful that a Bill of such major importance should have its first proceedings in another place, before the House of Commons has had an opportunity even to discuss the principles of the White Paper?
    Mr. Monro: To answer the second part of that supplementary question first, I see no reason for regarding the Bill as unsuitable for introduction in another place. The answer to the second part is that of course opinions contrary to the Bill have been expressed during the very detailed consultations that have gone on, though the Bill as a whole has been very favourably received.
    Mr. Carmichael: Leaving aside the question of consultations, which I know have been wide-ranging, may I give the Under-Secretary notice that in Committee we shall pursue a number of important points relating to the implementation of the proposals in the Measure, some of

    417
    which were raised with him at his meeting with the S.T.U.C. on 19th November, particularly in regard to the need to strengthen the machinery within the proposed new organisation to allow proper consultation with and participation of those employed in the service? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this will be a particularly important factor in relation to the effect that any decisions may have on the service when the Bill becomes law?
    Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he approaches the Bill and I am sure that we shall have a constructive discussion in Committee. I hope that at the end of the day Scotland will be proud of its new legislation.

    School Milk
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he has made of the administrative costs of selective distribution of milk, on a basis of medical evidence, in contrast with a system of blanket supply in primary schools.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): None, Sir. I see no need for any authority to incur significant extra expenditure.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do the Government dispute that there is disproportionate and enormous cost in health visiting and medical time?
    Mr. Campbell: That should not be necessary. Each authority can decide how to set about this task, and it is not necessary for every child to be examined.
    Mr. Buchan: In view of the astonishing discrepancy shown in the results in Scotland following medical examinations——
    Mr. Dalyell: Astonishing indeed!
    Mr. Buchan: —varying from zero in some counties to 40 per cent. in at least one, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not agree that the scheme has become farcical, because it depends entirely on the say-so of a particular medical officer, who is under no guidance whatever, and that the Government are not encouraging medical officers to take a properly balanced medical decision? Is the right hon. Gentleman
    418
    aware that he must deal with this issue, which is becoming a disgrace?
    Mr. Campbell: It is more a matter that each authority has been able to approach this differently. The medical officers naturally use their professional judgment. I remind the hon. Member that when the Labour Government removed milk from all secondary schools, they made no arrangements at all for medical exemptions.

    Personal Safety
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of the concern which has been expressed in legal quarters at the circumstances in which certain people have recently died as the result of deliberate lethal attack, in some cases by juveniles, what steps he intends taking to create greater security for human life.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The police have been strengthened in the past year and my right hon. Friend will continue to support and encourage them in all they do to increase efficiency. In co-operation with local authorities we shall maintain action on the social front. My right hon. Friend has also referred the penalties for homicide to the Emslie Committee.
    Mr. Rankin: Would the hon. Gentleman accept as a basis of his approach that punishment for crime should have a curative purpose? Does he believe that to be so today? If he does, can he say why the number of murders in Scotland during the last few years has been increasing so rapidly?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. Member appreciates, the question of the causes of violence and so on is a very wide one. I agree that one has to look at it on every side, in relation to the police, the forms of punishment and many other factors. I assure the hon. Member that I take very seriously what he has said.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: Would the Under-Secretary bear in mind that the increase in crime over the past few years has been in weapon assaults rather than murders? During the past six years there has been a fairly steady rate of murders in Scotland, until the past year. In these

    419
    circumstances will the Government pay attention mainly to weapon assaults?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I take note of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. As he knows, the question of powers of search for offensive weapons, a matter in which I had some interest at one stage, is at present being considered by the Thompson Committee on Criminal Procedure. I take to heart what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, because this is a serious aspect of the problem.

    Nurses (Recruitment)
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the recruitment of student nurses in Scotland.
    Mr. Monro: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 18th January which indicated a steady improvement in recruitment.—[Vol. 829, c. 146.]
    Mr. Gourlay: I am interested in those figures. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some hospital boards of management in Scotland have had to postpone recruitment of student nurses because of financial limitations? In view of the introduction of a 40-hour week for nurses and the clamant need for trained nursing staff, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a danger of reduction of standards of patient care in hospitals in Scotland? Would he undertake to see that sufficient funds are made available to regional hospital boards to try to maintain or even to improve the standards of patient care?
    Mr. Monro: It is for the board of management to determine how the funds which it is allocated can best be spent. But I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, and if he has a particular case in mind I will look at that urgently.
    Mr. Brewis: Would my hon. Friend see that facilities in nurses' homes are continually being improved by things like extra telephones for nurses, which at present are usually provided by the friends of the hospital rather than the hospital board?
    Mr. Monro: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. It is certainly something that regional boards and boards of management are examining carefully. The nurses' homes that I have visited in the past six months have impressed me with the conditions available.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Whatever the recruitment figures might be, is there not considerable wastage caused by trained nurses leaving the profession, due in large measure to the gross exploitation of these young women and the shocking inadequacy of their pay? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that the current pay claim by nurses is expedited by the Government and that the Government will take steps to ensure that they do not impose an arbitrary 8 per cent. annual increase on the nurses?
    Mr. Monro: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's approach to this matter. I hope he will realise that for student nurses, to which the Question refers, the wastage has been falling in recent years, and this is a very good trend. The wage claim is now before the Whitley Council and it will come to the Government in due course.

    Irvine (Tenants' Representations)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Dreghorn Tenants' Association, Irvine New Town; and what reply has he sent.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend received representations from the association against any further increase of rent, and replied that he understood that the new rents scheme to be introduced by the new town development corporation from 28th May, 1972, will accord with the Housing Bill at present before the House, which will ensure that no tenant will pay more rent than he can reasonably afford.
    Mr. Lambie: I am very disappointed by that answer. Does not the Under-Secretary realise that the tenants of these houses are already paying the highest rents in Scotland, an average rent of £4 per week for a four-apartment house, and in 1975–76 there is a possibility of these rents rising to £32 per month, which is £8 per week? I ask the Under-Secretary

    421
    to look at the need for special financial consideration to be given to Irvine Development Corporation in order to allow it to get out of this unjust situation.
    Mr. Younger: I certainly would not accept at their face value the figures that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Surely the main feature of the new scheme is that the generous rent rebate scheme, most of the cost of which will be paid by the Government, will protect tenants from any rent levels that they cannot afford to pay.

    Local Authority Work Projects
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the additional projects submitted by Scottish local authorities in July, 1971, at the Government's request, as a measure to curb unemployment, and the estimated cost of the projects.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Between July and December proposals for about £100 million of additional works were submitted by local and other public authorities. Of these, £60 million were approved under the special programme, some £9 million could be accommodated within normal provision and £27 million could not be approved because the stipulated criteria were not satisfied.
    Mr. Steel: That reply is a little disappointing. Is the Secretary of State aware that at any rate there was the belief by many local authorities that, having been asked to produce programmes of emergency measures, there would be a swift response from the Government? Is it the case in Edinburgh that by the end of the year only 50 per cent. of the projects had been approved?
    Mr. Campbell: "Emergency" is the key word. About half of what was proposed by Edinburgh could not be accepted, much of it because it could not be started and largely carried out by March, 1973. But a great deal of it can be incorporated in the normal programme.
    Mr. Ross: Can the Secretary of State give us in HANSARD a list of all the projects and the areas in which they would have been carried out, and an estimate of the number of jobs that the work would provide?
    Mr. Campbell: I will certainly supply such information as is now available. I have in the past kept the House informed in HANSARD of how this is going, and I undertake to do this again, as far as we can, up to the present situation. As I said, it is exceedingly difficult to estimate how many jobs are kept or how many more jobs are brought into being as a result of this kind of programme.

    Midwives (Lanarkshire)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about his plans for solving the shortage of midwives in the Lanarkshire area, and about his plans for recruiting further midwives.
    Mr. Monro: This is a local problem, at the Bellshill Maternity Hospital, about which the hon. Gentleman has shown great concern. I am satisfied that the Western Regional Hospital Board and the Board of Management are taking all possible steps to obtain additional staff. There has been wide advertising following the hospital careers exhibition at Airdrie last year, and the hospital authorities are exploring ways of making service at the hospital more attractive to nursing staff.
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and for the correspondence he has had with me on this matter. Bearing in mind that when trained nurses enter the midwifery service they suffer a drop in salary, will the hon. Gentleman consider the idea of restoring their salary to its proper level? On that basis he would go a long way to solving the problem. Will he also institute an inquiry concerning the Bellshill Maternity Hospital to correct its staffing position?
    Mr. Monro: Regarding the salary, the hon. Gentleman should know that that matter is for the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council. In its pay claim, however, the staff side has included a specific claim for post-registration students and student midwives, and this will be given a great deal of consideration by the management side. On the second part of the question, at this stage this is a matter for the regional board and the board of management and I hope that they will be able to solve the problems there as soon as possible.

    Higher School Bursaries
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will amend the bursary regulations to take account of the raising of the school leaving age to 16 years, so that pupils under 16 years who are eligible shall continue to qualify for higher school bursaries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Monro: No, Sir. The purpose of higher school bursaries is to encourage parents to let their children stay at school beyond the leaving age.
    Mr. Dempsey: But is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is prescribed that a pupil must reach school leaving age to qualify for a bursary? The raising of the school leaving age to 16 will mean that the 15-year-olds are no longer eligible. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be a national scandal to deprive 15-year-old boys and girls of the right to qualify for a bursary? Is it not time the hon. Gentleman did something about it?
    Mr. Monro: The bursary is for pupils who would have left school. We have made transitional arrangements for any schoolchildren now aged 15 so that they will not be deprived of the bursary when they reach 16 this year.
    Mr. Buchan: I think I am not the only Member who is very confused by the hon. Gentleman's answers. All the statistics show that the main falling-off in schools attendance occurs because of hardship between the school leaving age and the entrance age for higher education. The matter is now a key educational problem. Bursaries should be available. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he says about the position and deal with the general situation arising from it?
    Mr. Monro: It is clear that when the school leaving age is raised to 16 bursaries will be available only to those children over the age of 16.
    Mr. Dempsey: Scandalous.

    Building Industry (Costs and Output)
    Mr. Ronald King Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will recommend the establishment of a
    424
    Royal Commission to inquire into the high cost of building and the low output of the building industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend will continue to encourage the Scottish building industry to sustain the improvements it has been making in quality and productivity. I do not believe that a Royal Commission could assist this process.
    Mr. Murray: As the Government do not propose to recommend a Royal Commission, may I assume that they have considered the Sidwell Report on Scottish house-building? What action do they propose to take on it?
    Mr. Younger: The Sidwell Report has been under continuous consideration by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Employment and myself since it was published. It has also been under review by the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee. Many steps have been taken to try to help the building industry to improve its practices and thereby solve some of the problems brought to light by Professor Sidwell.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the building trade is adhering to all the regulations? There are some pretty dicey buildings going up, so far as I can see.
    Mr. Younger: As far as I can find out, the building trade is adhering to the building regulations. Professor Sidwell was of the opinion that some of the regulations contributed to higher costs, and we are examining this possibility.
    Mr. John Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the cost of house-building in Scotland is a very important, almost critical, question? If the Government want to increase home ownership, they should realise that the relationship between ordinary wages and building costs is very important. Unless we can bring the cost of construction down to the English level, the hon. Gentleman will never solve any of the housing problems in Scotland. Will he not treat the matter as one of urgency?
    Mr. Younger: I agree that the matter is very important. Since the Sidwell Report was published we have taken a

    425
    number of specific actions, including consideration by the Scottish Apprenticeship and Training Council of the possibility of adjusting training programmes; research by my Department into the relative value of certain traditional construction practices; research by the Building Research Station to the same aspects; consideration by the Building Standards Advisory Committee of the Sidwell criticism affecting the regulations; and a survey of Scottish productivity characteristics, in co-operation with the industry.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that not only are some pretty dicey buildings going up but that the prices of those dicey buildings are high and are rocketing? May I commend to him that he should make a study in his own constituency, comparing the prices demanded now with those asked a year ago? If the hon. Gentleman is not alarmed about the matter, is he aware that those seeking to buy those houses are very concerned?
    Mr. Younger: The rise in prices causes great concern. I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman had thought about that when he introduced selective employment tax.

    North Sea Oil (Conference)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will attend the conference on North Sea oil arranged by the Scottish Council, Development and Industry.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have already arranged to do so.
    Mr. Douglas: When the right hon. Gentleman attends the conference, and when his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development takes the other conference on 14th February—an unfortunate clash of dates—will the people involved be told that we will not tolerate the high returns on capital invested that have been achieved on North Sea gas—80 per cent.—as a return on capital invested in North Sea oil? We expect North Sea oil to he a net contributor to our balance of payments position and we do not expect to experience a net outflow.
    Mr. Campbell: All those matters will no doubt come up during the two-day conference. I shall be mainly concerned with the new North Sea oil industry and the benefits it can bring to Scotland.

    List D Schools
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in respect of the shortage of places in List D schools in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Monro: During the last nine months my right hon. Friend has received written representations on this subject on four occasions. These representations related mainly to waiting times for admission to schools for senior Protestant girls, but since November, 1971, this has not presented any serious problem.
    Mr. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the very detailed answer he gave me in writing yesterday on the particular problem I raised with him. Does he not accept that even against the background of that detailed answer the problem still exists, that children's panels experience great difficulty in finding places for the children with whom they deal and that that could seriously affect their working in the future?
    Mr. Monro: I cannot fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says. At present there is no problem and there is no delay in putting girls or boys over the age of 15 into a List D school. It is still too early to say whether the introduction of the children's hearings has had an effect on the number of places required, but we are making additions to two girls' schools and extensions are planned for two boys' schools in the modernisation programme costing about 1½ million in the next two years.

    School Meals (Coal Miners' Strike)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated increase in schoolchildren receiving school meals as a result of the coal miners' strike; and what is the estimated additional cost.
    Mr. Monro: I understand that applications from miners' families are being made and dealt with but detailed information is not collected centrally by reference to parent's employment.
    Mr. Eadie: Will the Minister accept that the children of miners claiming school meals are getting their legal entitlement, and will he refute the suggestions of his back-benchers that the law requires

    427
    to be changed? Will he dissociate himself from the theory that has been expounded in his party that the way for Governments to win strikes is to try to starve the strikers into submission?
    Mr. Monro: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is open to parents to apply for free meals for their children at any time if the family's fiancial circumstances change, for whatever reason.

    Herring
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of the herring catch by the Scottish vessels in 1971.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The value of herring landed in Scotland by British vessels in 1971 was £4,429,588.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a tremendous result, which reflects great credit on our fishermen as well as on my hon. Friend for his support of them? As we now have the most important herring fisheries in Europe, has my hon. Friend any further proposals for conservation as well as for protection?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. The 1971 catch was a record for the Scottish fleet in terms of value. I pay tribute to the efforts of our fishermen. We shall continue our consultations on conservation measures with the other nations that fish in the North Sea, and we are continuing in 1972 the 10-week ban that we tried out in 1971.

    Council Houses (Approvals)
    Mr. McArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of approvals for new houses to be built in the public sector in 1971.
    Mr. Younger: 23,122.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the first increase in approvals in the public sector since the decline which set in in 1967? Can he calculate the extent to which this welcome improvement will help employment prospects in the construction industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: The decline set in after 1967, as I think my hon. Friend meant to say. It is a welcome turn of the tide and I hope that we shall get a further increase in the coming year with consequent great benefit to employment in Scotland and to the supply of homes for people on the waiting lists.
    Dr. Dickson Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question which he does not answer in the Standing Committee on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill? Will he admit that this shameful figure compares with 33,000 approvals in 1968 and the same number in 1969? Is it not the case that the entire building programme has collapsed by over one-third since the hon. Gentleman took office and that he is responsible for the failure to get approvals? Is it not a fact that a large number of these approvals are due in any event to the so-called "1st December clause" and that we have not yet been told how many of these houses are in that category?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman's figures are quite wrong. The figure for local authority approvals in 1968 was 27,491 and in 1969 it was 26,806. This represented a steady drop from the total in 1967. The drop has turned into an increase, which is very encouraging for us all.
    Dr. MahonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman do not——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman has twisted the figures.

    British Sugar Corporation (Assets)
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received regarding his responsibilities in relation to the disposal of the assets in Scotland of the British Sugar Corporation.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend has no such responsibilities.
    Mr. Strang: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be a sorry state of affairs if the corporation were to dispose of these assets for a figure substantially

    429
    less than that at which it was to sell to the private consortium which at one time was interested in growing sugar beet in Scotland?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that the corporation has a clear commercial incentive to act in the best interests of its shareholders and that the Government are in no different position from that of other shareholders.

    Forestry Commission
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the plans for the Forestry Commission to move its headquarters to Edinburgh; and if the original target date for moving still holds.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Forestry Commission recently announced its decision to transfer its headquarters to Edinburgh, a decision which I welcome. Progress is in accordance with the programme announced by the commission, which is unchanged.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he tell me where in Edinburgh these headquarters are to be and whether this means more jobs becoming available?
    Mr. Campbell: A number of sites are under consideration in different parts of the city and it is estimated that about 140 new jobs will come into being.

    Mortgage Interest Relief
    Mr. John Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average amount per annum of mortgage interest relief to owner-occupiers of houses and dwellings in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: About £18 for 1970–71.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Is he prepared to state the total number of owner-occupiers who were receiving this amount of tax relief? It would give us the wider picture.
    Mr. Younger: I am afraid that I cannot give a figure for the number of people in Scotland receiving tax relief for purchasing their own homes, but I can say that the comparison, although not a very meaningful one, would indicate that the
    430
    total amount of subsidy in the case of a council house in the previous year—the most recent figures we have—was approaching £100.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a person receiving the average wage in manufacturing industry in Scotland would not be able to obtain a mortgage to buy the cheapest new house offered for sale in Scotland? What are the Government going to do to remedy this situation before they pursue their policy further of increasing council rents, thus chasing people into the private sector where they cannot afford the houses being built?
    Mr. Younger: The question of who can afford a mortgage has to be considered by the individual and the building society in the light of the circumstances of each case. If a person who cannot afford a mortgage has low means and needs help, he will get it from the generous rent rebate scheme under the new Bill.

    Sugar Beet
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has had with the Chairman of the British Sugar Corporation to discuss sugar beet growing in Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture has had a meeting and other consultations.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Is it not the case that since it was agreed that this country should enter the E.E.C. my right hon. Friend has had no contact to discuss what is an obvious change of circumstances? Does not he think that this is what he should have done?
    Mr. Campbell: The prospect of entry has created no new situation which would justify me in reopening with the Chairman of the B.S.C. the question of the Cupar factory.

    Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate, on a percentage basis, of the number of tenants in local authority housing who will pay increased rents, when

    431
    the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill becomes law.
    Mr. Younger: This will depend on the rents fixed by local authorities for individual houses and on the effect of the new rent rebate scheme, and accordingly no estimate can be made.
    Mr. Hunter: If the hon. Gentleman is unable to assess accurately this part of the Bill, how can any credence be attached to the subsidy provisions? Is it not correct to say that the high cost of rent rebates will take a high proportion of the money from tenants and not from the ratepayers and taxpayers, with the Government getting some of the money into the bargain?
    Mr. Younger: I am not sure that I follow that point. The position under the new Bill will be that those who face rent increases they cannot reasonably afford will be assisted by the generous rent rebate scheme, the major part of the cost of which will be paid by the Government and not by the ratepayer or the individual. This is a fair system which will ensure that there is no hardship.
    Mr. McElhone: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that local authorities like Glasgow will face administrative costs in introducing this subsidy? Will he reconsider and give help to local authorities like Glasgow in administering the subsidy?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said but Glasgow already runs a rent rebate scheme of which it pays the entire cost of administration as well as the whole cost of the rent rebates. In future the Government will pay most of the cost of the rent rebates. The cost of administering the allowances will come from Government subsidy.

    Sports Council (Representatives)
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many bowling club representatives he has appointed to the Sports Council for Scotland.
    Mr. Monro: None of the members was appointed to represent a particular sport. All were appointed for the contribution they would, as individuals, make to the work of the council as a whole.
    Mr. Doig: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is necessary to have some representation of the sports which cater for the largest number of people? Is he not aware that bowling is next to angling as the largest participating sport in Scotland, with over 60,000 people actively participating regularly? Does he not think that he should put on the Sports Council for Scotland someone who could put forward their point of view?
    Mr. Monro: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said when I next appoint members to the Sports Council. I ask him to accept, however, that bowling, although it has been without representation, has accepted grants of £282,000 since the scheme was set up in 1964 and that this is much more than any other single sport has received.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is my hon. Friend aware that bowlers have a great tradition of calmness and initiative, going back to the days of Sir Francis Drake? Is he really saying that none of today's bowlers in Scotland have these qualities? If he is, I do not believe him.
    Mr. MonroOf course, there are bowlers of quality, but I do not think that Sir Francis Drake would play at Queen's Park or Hampden Park.

    White Fish
    Mr. Sproatasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of the white fish catch by the Scottish inshore fleet during 1971.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The value of white fish landed in Scotland by British vessels under 80 ft. in length in 1971 was £15,467,047. This was an increase of 35 per cent. over the previous year.
    Mr. Sproat: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this record catch reflects the strength of the Scottish fishing industry, particularly in relation to its European competitors?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is little doubt that the Scottish fishing industry is in extremely good heart at present. It is interesting to note that the number of boats completed last year was the highest since 1961. On this basis of competitive strength, the industry has no need to fear entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Does not that excellent figure highlight the lack of foresight and wisdom of those hon. Members representing fishing constituencies who voted for entry into the E.E.C. when this will mean that in 1983 these fishings will disappear?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There are none so deaf as those who will not listen. If the hon. Gentleman would study the agreement in relation to 1982 and not mislead the fishing industry, he would see that the industry has little to fear and that the British Government are well able, if they so wish, to protect the interests of the industry at that time.

    Teacher Training Colleges
    Mr. William Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ask the General Teaching Council to hold an inquiry into the methods of teaching and training, and students' facilities, at teacher training colleges.
    Mr. Monro: The council is already undertaking an inquiry into the training of teachers for work in the secondary schools. My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to ask it to extend the scope of that inquiry.
    Mr. Hannan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Scotland has a more highly developed system for the education and training of teachers than have England and Wales? Since the James Report applies only to England and Wales, will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter and appoint a comparable committee to inquire into the education and training of teachers in Scotland?
    Mr. Monro: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I think it would be wise to study the report which will be published in the early summer and also to give careful consideration to the James Report, as my Department is now doing, bearing in mind that teacher training in England and Wales differs widely from that in Scotland.

    Glasgow Motorway Box
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the public concern about the proposed route of the eastern flank of the Glasgow
    434
    motorway box; what action he will take to allay it; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Younger: I am aware of the interest being shown in this part of Glasgow's Highway Plan, and I am sure the corporation will take it fully into account in developing specific proposals for the east flank of the Inner Ring Road.
    Mr. Galbraith: I hope that my hon. Friend will not leave this entirely to Glasgow Corporation, which seems to have made up its mind. When so many towns are re-examining the need for urban roads, I hope that my hon. Friend will use his influence to get Glasgow to do the same.
    Mr. Younger: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's feelings on this, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. It would be premature for me to express views either way until the corporation has put specific proposals to me. At that stage there will be full opportunity for objections to be made and considered at a public inquiry before decisions are taken.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have no objection to intervention in matters east of Glasgow Cross by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), but is this subject within the discussions which the Minister is having with the corporation on the phasing of the whole of the redevelopment programme?
    Mr. Younger: No, this is not a specific subject, except in so far as anything affecting the long-term development plan of the city obviously has to be taken into account in terms of roads.

    Regional Employment Premium
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the effect of industrial development in Scotland of the abolition of the regional employment premium in 1974.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: It is not possible to make a valid estimate of this.
    Mr. Smith: Should not the Secretary of State start thinking about it? We have a desperately high level of unemployment and although, according to the right hon. Gentleman, we are in an era

    435
    of high productivity, we shall have a great unemployment problem for some years to come. Does he view with equanimity the disappearance of the labour subsidy, except in special development areas, after 1974? Does he not realise that this is the one form of regional development assistance which benefits existing as well as incoming firms? Will not the Secretary of State give a satisfactory answer and show that he is conscious of the problem of attracting and maintaining jobs?
    Mr. Campbell: I am aware that this measure has not in practice acted as an incentive in the way in which it was originally thought it would. The terminal date is still more than two-and-a-half years away and we shall naturally be considering the situation nearer the time. The Green Paper introduced by the Labour Government proposed a period of five years only. That period was increased to seven years when the scheme was brought into effect and September, 1974, will be the end of the seven years. We have undertaken to keep it until that date, as we said we would before the General Election.
    Mr. Ross: Do I understand that the Government have decided to abolish it without being aware of the consequences?
    Mr. Campbell: We have given notice that the terminal date set by the Labour Government is to be adhered to—the seven-year period—but it is over two-and-a-half years away and it is too early yet to decide definitely what should be done then.
    Mr. MacArthur: When my right hon. Friend is studying possible incentives to employment in Scotland, will he please consider the serious proposal put forward by my hon. Friends and myself that the sugar beet industry in Scotland should be retained until 1974 when its future within the E.E.C. can be properly assessed?
    Mr. Campbell: I am very much aware of what my hon. Friends have been saying on this, but the Government took into account the question of entry to the E.E.C. in their consideration of the future of the sugar beet industry in Scotland.

    Secondary Schools (Staffing Survey)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now prepared
    436
    to publish the results of the secondary schools staffing survey.
    Mr. Monro: The first of two volumes of statistics will be published about the end of February. The second volume is being printed. My right hon. Friend's Department is preparing a report on secondary school staffing based on the survey and this too will be published.
    Mr. Lambie: I thank the Under-Secretary for his reply. Does he realise that those of us who support the Government's policy of raising the school leaving age to 16 this year want the result of this survey to be published, since we believe it will show that we have an adequate supply of teachers to carry out this policy?
    Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I can give him both assurances. The survey will be published and we shall have an adequate supply of teachers, always excepting possible local difficulties in some areas.

    Scottish Council. Development and Industry
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the meeting he had with the Scottish Development Council delegation on Thursday, 13th January.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 20th January to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie).—[Vol. 829, c. 250.]
    Mr. Hamilton: I have myself questioned the Prime Minister, but is the Secretary of State aware that last year the number of industrial development certificates allocated in Scotland was the lowest for the last five years? Does he realise that there are more than 154,000 unemployed in Scotland? We have now had an intimation about the iron ore terminal and, therefore, will he be most voluble at Cabinet level in pressing for the steel complex at Hunterston? If we do not get it, will he do the honourable thing and, in protest, resign from office?
    Mr. Campbell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall continue to be

    437
    voluble at Cabinet and other levels. I heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replying to the hon. Gentleman's question yesterday after he had made a full statement about the meeting. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that the ore terminal was one of the matters which the representatives of the Scottish Council advocated when they came to see the Prime Minister. The other matters are still under consideration.

    Carlisle Road, Airdrie (Pedestrian Footbridge)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the number of road accidents, including fatal, seriously injured, slightly injured and vehicular collisions since 1969, he will approve a flyover for pedestrians at Carlisle Road, Airdrie, as a safety measure for the public.
    Mr. Younger: It is for Airdrie Town Council, in the first instance, to consider whether a pedestrian footbridge would be justified at this site. The town council has not asked my right hon. Friend to approve a footbridge, but any such request would be carefully considered.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Airdrie Town Council has already submitted proposals for crossings that have been rejected by his Department? Does he realise that from 1969 to date 36 accidents have occurred here, resulting in two fatalities, two serious injuries, 10 less serious injuries and 22 collisions? As this stretch of the trunk road is built-up on both sides will he bear in mind that the only way to take pedestrians off it is to build a pedestrian flyover? Will he please look at this matter again?
    Mr. Younger: I well appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter and that of his constituents. We have to conform to general criteria over the country as a whole and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it was found that the vehicle and accident rates did not justify a light-controlled crossing. I have, however, informed the town council that I should be prepared to authorise the provision of a zebra crossing and that if the town council were to propose a footbridge I would consider it.

    Law Reform
    Mr. Ronald King Murrayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reports of Royal Commissions and of other official committees recommending reform of the law of Scotland have not yet been implemented; and what proposals the Government have for early implementation of any of these.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With permission I will circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Eleven reports are listed, three of which have been partly implemented and one of which will be implemented if Parliament approves the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill. Of the remainder some deal with matters now under review by the Scottish Law Commission.
    Mr. Murray: Does not the Under-Secretary agree that his answer reveals a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and that law reform in Scotland, if it has not come to a standstill, has slowed down far too much? In these circumstances, what action do the Government propose to take?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am sure, realises, the reports in question cover a period of 14 years, and the greater number of them were submitted during the previous Government's term of office. Therefore I cannot accept that the present Government have been in any way dilatory in dealing with this matter. I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern that where reports are completed and recommendations are made we obviously want to implement them, but it depends to a great extent on the availability of parliamentary time.
    Mr. Murray: What are the Government going to do about that?
    Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have already stated that I am prepared to give all co-operation for meetings of the Second Scottish Standing Committee on Wednesdays to deal with this kind of thing?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I note the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but if he had behaved more constructively in relation

    439
    to other legislation than he has done, there would have been a great deal more of benefit to Scotland and to the law of Scotland, but we know that his mind does not work that way.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is it not very dangerous to suggest that merely because lawyers suggest there should be a change in the law, there should be a change in the law? One might as well suggest that company law should be changed because of suggestions by directors of companies. Surely these decisions should be taken in this place and not implemented merely

    Not yet implemented

    Date of Report

    Law Reform Committee: Enforcement of Maintenance Orders

    …

    February, 1958

    McKechnie Committee on Diligence

    …

    June, 1958

    Law Reform Committee: Civil Liability for Damage Done by Animals

    …

    October, 1963

    Law Reform Committee: Diligence

    …

    June, 1964

    Scottish Law Commission: "Divorce—the Grounds Considered"

    …

    March, 1967

    Kilbrandon Committee on the Marriage Law of Scotland

    …

    March, 1969

    Henry Committee on Registration of Title to Land in Scotland

    …

    May, 1969

    Scottish Law Commission: Companies (Floating Charges) (Scotland) Act 1961

    January, 1970

    Implemented in part only

    Date of Report

    Halliday Committee on Conveyancing Legislation and Practice

    …

    August, 1966

    Grant Committee on the Sheriff Court

    …

    March, 1967

    Scottish Law Commission: Prescription and Limitation of Actions

    …

    August, 1970

    Electricity Charges (Payment of Arrears and Deposits)
    Mr. Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the effect on social work departments of the local authorities' policies introduced by the South of Scotland Electricity Board relating to payment of arrears and the deposits required from new consumers.
    Mr. Monro: The Association of Directors of Social Work has represented to my right hon. Friend that social work departments are having to spend a considerable amount of time looking into cases of families which claim to be in financial difficulty over electricity supply.
    Mr. Ewing: Does not the Under-Secretary accept, against the background of that answer, that he should approach the South of Scotland Electricity Board in the same manner as the electricity boards here in England have been approached, to ask the board to reconsider its attitude towards payments of arrears and deposits required? I appreciate the position of the board and I know of the bad debts it has at the present time. I am only asking the hon. Gentleman to consider that an approach
    because they are recommended by lawyers, however worthy they may be?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There have been recommendations for changes in the law, but changes in the law involve this House and, therefore, the recommendations, when they come forward in legislation, will be considered on their merits in this House.
    Following is the list of reports dealing with law reform, showing reports not yet implemented or implemented in part only:
    should be made to the board to reconsider its policy.
    Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a very difficult problem. The bad debts of the South of Scotland Electricity Board are running at around £400,000 per year and they have to be carried by those consumers who do pay their accounts. Consultations are going on between the local authorities and the board, and I hope that a solution can be found to help in this difficult situation.

    Unemployment (Conference)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he now proposes to call a Scottish conference of management, trade unions and local authorities on unemployment.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have regular contacts in the Scottish Economic Council and frequent contacts with other representatives of industry and trade unions, and I have had recent meetings with representatives of local authority associations. I do not therefore consider that it is necessary for me to call a special conference.
    Mr. Eadie: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain how a conference is

    441
    called at, I understand, the instigation of his Department with the local authorities and, since we have had some strictures about behaviour from some of his hon. Friends on the Front Bench, why the date of that conference conflicts with the S.T.U.C. assembly organised at the Usher Hall, Edinburgh? Can this Government get nothing right? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have just discussed this with the S.T.U.C., which believes that the reason for this clash is an endeavour by the Government to try to manipulate the mass media?
    Mr. Campbell: I think the hon. Member means to refer to the conference of local authorities and others in the northeast of Scotland concerning North Sea oil. This is one which was asked for and which I arranged at the convenience of those concerned, and it happens that the local authorities, I understand, have no difficulty in sending representatives to this conference and to the other one which is taking place. It happens to be on a day when my hon. Friend who will be in the chair at the conference can be available, it being a Monday, not a parliamentary day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] It is in the morning, when Parliament is not sitting. That is what I meant. It is at a time when my hon. Friend can be available.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Manpower
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister for the Civil Service what reduction in the numerical strength of the Civil Service, expressed, respectively, in numbers and in percentage, occurred during the period of 18 months between 1st July, 1970, and 31st December, 1971; and, having regard to the legislative programme of the Government having been substantially settled for 1972, what further reduction he now anticipates during this year.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 1st December, 1971. The figures for 1st January, 1972, are not yet available but will be published shortly.—[Vol. 827, c. 107.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that bureaucrats are introverted, introspective
    442
    and secretive and thus are irreconcilable to Tory General Election promises for open government and, secondly, that there would be a dramatic reduction in the size and extent of the bureaucracy? When is that to be implemented?
    Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is entitled to his own view on the Civil Service. As far as the numbers of civil servants is concerned, as he knows there has been a substantial reduction in some areas. These have been outweighed by an increase in prison staff and in social security work. If he wants cuts in those programmes he is free to bring forward his proposals.
    Mr. Sheldon: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it remains the intention of the Government that there should be an overall reduction in the number of non-industrial civil servants?
    Mr. Howell: We intend to achieve cuts where we can, but the point is that there are programmes demanding more civil servants. Either we can slow up those programmes or we can achieve economies in manpower. If hon. Members opposite do not want more prison staff and welfare staff they should get up and say so.
    Mr. Chapman: Is not the point that the rate of increase of civil servants should be cut back as far as possible, if not actually reduced, because is it not a fact that if the rate of increase in the next few years is what it has been in the last few years by 2000 A.D. everybody in the country will be a civil servant?
    Mr. Howell: It is certainly true that the rate of increase in recent months has been very much lower than it was in the years of the Labour Government.
    Mr. John D. Grant: Would the Minister ignore some of the blinkered blimps behind him?
    Sir G. Nabarro: Do not be rude.
    Mr. Grant: Would it not be better to consider the present trend of unemployment and to consider that in the long-term interest there will have to be an expansion in service industries in both the private and public sectors?
    Mr. Howell: I think it is perfectly healthy for this House to be suspicious of excessive bureaucracy.

    European Economic Community
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister for the Civil Service, having regard to the signing of the accession Treaty for the European Economic Community on 22nd January and the publication of the relevant documents in English with all the attendant operational regulations, if he will now provide further details of what increase in the British Civil Service he now anticipates on account of European Economic Community membership.
    Mr. David Howell: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 19th January.—[Vol. 829, c. 197.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, but does not my hon. Friend recognise that, both in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the European Communities Bill and his earlier reply to which he alluded there is talk only of an increase in the bureaucracy for administration purposes and that he conveniently omits the 5,500 extra bureaucrats to implement the value-added tax? What has he got to say about that huge increase in the cost of collecting taxes?
    Mr. Howell: As I suspect my hon. Friend knows, value-added tax implementation is quite separate from the decision to join the European Economic Community.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Slippery answers, I must say.

    Civil Service College (Scotland)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the progress made in the creation of a Civil Service College in Scotland.
    Mr. David Howell: The Edinburgh Centre of the Civil Service College opened on 4th November, 1970, and has at present 180 student places. The training now provided includes courses for executive officers, for civil servants at middle management level and for those in the scientific and professional classes. Present proposals envisage a total of
    444
    about 400 places when the adaptation of all the buildings is completed. This is expected to be in the mid-1970s.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are there any delays in the proposed expansion?
    Mr. Howell: I have no evidence of delays at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman does have evidence of delays or has reports of that kind which have come to him and will let me know them, I will certainly look into them.
    Dr. Dickson Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the excellent decision to set up this college was made by the previous Government, and in view of the unemployment and the dispersal of civil servants throughout the country may we ask that more of these people should be able to establish themselves at this new establishment?
    Mr. Howell: That raises a broader question. It is true that a dispersal study is going on. We hope to be able to announce a decision towards the autumn, but it is a separate question from that of the Civil Service College.

    Press and Information Officers
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he is satisfied with the present distribution between Departments of Government Press and information officers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Howell: The strength of information staff engaged on publicity and Press office work is primarily a matter for individual Ministers. The review which I mentioned in the reply to my hon. Friend on 25th May last will be completed shortly. If my hon. Friend is comparing staff between Departments he may find it useful to have the figures of the total staff in Departments' information divisions rather than the staff engaged on particular functions, as given in my reply on 25th May. I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Fowler: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree that there is a most extraordinary discrepancy in the facts that he has given? Is he aware that the Defence Department has 139 Press and information officers yet a major

    445
    Department like the Home Office can get on with under 20?
    Mr. Howell: I do not think the discrepancy is quite as bad as my hon. Friend may think. What he may have missed is that information staff includes people doing publicity, recruitment, advertising, exhibitions, general internal information, making films and a variety of other information services. Different Departments have quite different needs and these are reflected in the figures.
    Following is the information:

    Total Information Branch Posts at 1st December, 1971

    10 Downing Street

    11

    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    102

    Cabinet Office

    3

    Civil Service Department

    45

    Customs and Excise

    3

    Defence (excluding PE)

    272*

    Defence (Procurement Executive)

    25

    Education and Science

    40

    Employment

    50

    Environment

    125

    Export Credits Guarantee Department

    6

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office (News Department)

    24

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Overseas Development Administration)

    15

    Health and Social Security

    47

    Home Office

    27

    Inland Revenue

    4

    National Savings

    50

    Posts and Telecommunications

    7

    Privy Council Office

    1

    Scottish Office

    30

    Trade and Industry (including Metrication Board)

    125

    Treasury and sub-departments

    24

    Welsh Office

    24

    Inquiry Offices and Departmental Libraries, where they form part of the Information Branch, are not included.

    * Includes 133 posts in United Kingdom Commands.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. John D. Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the custom of this House that where an hon. Member has two Oral Questions in succession the second goes to the end of the queue?
  Mr. Speaker: I am advised, rather hurriedly, that that applies only to the first Department to be questioned.
  Later—
  Mr. Speaker: May I add to what I said to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant)? I understand that the practice is in accordance with a Report of the Select Committee on Procedure which was accepted by the House.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT, MAPLIN
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I will, with permission, make a statement on the Third London Airport.
The Government have been considering the scope for associating other forms of development with the airport at Maplin and the possibilities of involving private capital. In considering the nature and scale of possible developments, we have had regard to the need to ensure high environmental standards in carrying out the whole undertaking, including the consequential housing and other developments which would be required in South Essex.
The airport will be a key factor in the success of any wider development at Maplin. It must be built to the highest standards and supported by first-class road and rail links. We are planning to have the first runway by 1980 or earlier if practicable.
There is no objection in principle to seaport development at Maplin, and we are informing the Port of London Authority that it is free to put forward firm proposals for detailed scrutiny under the Harbours Act, 1964.
We do not think it would be appropriate for primary industry such as steelworks, oil refineries and petro-chemical works to be located at Maplin, whether in association with a seaport or separately, both on grounds of regional policy and because development of this kind would create serious problems of incompatibility with a large international airport.
It is too early to take decisions about promoting a large industrial estate as part of the Maplin complex. It would create very real regional problems. We think that options should be kept open and that demand for secondary industry, hotels, offices and other commercial development which may be expected to grow following the opening of the airport

447
should be considered as it arises in the light of our regional, industrial and environmental policies and our developing relationships with Europe. To this end we are examining the engineering, cost and hydraulic implications of a method of reclamation which would allow land to be reclaimed by stages as and when needed.
We consider that although it may be highly desirable to involve private capital in the Maplin projects the nature of the project, its long time scale, and the crucial issues of Government policy that it raises necessitate substantial public sector commitment and control. We are giving further consideration to the machinery required and the best means of engaging private capital at the appropriate time.
Further announcements on these and other aspects will be made in due course.
Mr. Mulley: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making this interim statement. Can he give us some idea when he will make a further statement, and, in particular, give us, for the first time, some real costs for what is involved and state how they will be borne? Secondly, is he aware that we fully endorse his statement that substantial public sector commitment is the best method? Will he assure us that no undertakings to private capital will be entered into before this House is fully informed because we would not want to see the profit in the enterprise going to the private sector with the public sector having had all the expense? Is he aware that we welcome his decision not to develop the steelworks and so on on this site as that would be totally unacceptable? Will he give an assurance that the expenditure involved here is not to be at the expense of regional development in areas of high unemployment?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that there are many doubts about developing a new seaport when our existing seaports are operating below capacity? Dealing with the Harbours Act, will he say that in this case, at least, he will make a grant for development, unlike his policy in other respects? In the meantime will he ensure that proposals, such as those of B.E.A., for utilising existing airports and technological developments will not be ignored
448
to make a case for the third airport which many people feel is not yet made out?
Mr. Walker: As to the point of further announcements, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will keep the House informed of any major decisions taken as soon as any progress is made. As for regional policy, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government made their decision with regional policy very much in mind. There was considerable pressure for primary industry to be based there. We considered that it was against the interests of regional policy to do so. In terms of further development, the reason why I want to keep the options open is that I believe that the options will be of interest primarily after the airport is completed, not before, and that that is the time to review the effect of regional policy on any decisions then made.
As for the point about private enterprise being connected and my informing the House, obviously for things other than contracts for dredging and matters such as this—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows what I have in mind—I will certainly inform the House before any decisions are made. Turning to the point about the Harbours Act, the right hon. Gentleman knows better than most the scrutiny to which this matter will be subjected to determine its effects on other ports and the port industry. This is the proper process. I do not envisage any grants for this project.
In terms of the need for a third London Airport and the general remarks about B.E.A. I am certain that no responsible Government would do other than proceed with ensuring that these runways are available by 1980.
Sir Bernard Braine: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decision to safeguard the environment of my constituents, in particular by not permitting intense industrial development of a kind which would adversely affect amenities among the large population in the narrow peninsula between the Thames and the Crouch? Is he aware that this decision will give great satisfaction in South-East Essex? Is he further aware that his statement leaves unanswered some of our anxieties about the precise location of the runways, where the new roads and rail access routes will run

449
and whether he considers it necessary to set up some special agency to acquire land and co-ordinate and implement development? When can we expect an announcement on these matters?
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. First of all, as he knows, the Essex County Council and the Southend County Borough Council are fully represented on the steering committee looking into these problems. We are in association with the elected representatives of those primarily affected. On the question of the siting of the runways and the location of the road and rail routes, I shall be making an announcement to the House as soon as these are available. I can assure my hon. Friend that the main consideration is to ensure that they are in the best environmental interests of all concerned. Whenever the motorways concerned are built and whatever railway development needs to take place, it will be done in the best environmental way. As for a special agency, we have not made decisions about the basic method by which this development will be carried out. We are in close contact with the Essex County Council on this project, and as soon as any firm decision is known I will make it available to the House.
Mr. Lawson: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his decision about primary industry, may I ask him whether he intends to bring in such organisations as the Nature Conservancy to ensure that the work done there causes the minimum damage to the environment and that from the beginning such wild life as there is, notably bird life, will be protected?
Mr. Walker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's first remark. As for his later comments, I have already spoken to a number of experts in this sphere, for example about the problem of Brent geese, to see what level of environmental damage is done to wild life in the area.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would my right hon. Friend accept that those concerned with town and country planning will welcome this statement as to associated development at Foulness, representing as it does a careful balancing and reconciliation of the economic, social and environmental factors? Does he also appreciate that it is a further justification for
450
the imaginative decision of placing this airport by the sea?
Mr. Walker: I am grateful for what my right hon. and learned Friend has said.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that no hon. Member with a constituency anywhere near Heathrow has any doubt of the urgent necessity for a third London airport, and some of us on this side of the House wish our own Front Bench would stop knocking the third London airport——
Mr. Mellish: Well done, Hughie—good boy!
Mr. Jenkins—and that they would turn their dispraise to such undesirable projects as Concorde? Further, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say what present planning foresees as the opening date of this airport and when the first aircraft will take off from it?
Mr. Walker: May I say to the hon. Gentleman, and also to his right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), that for the first time in my life I am willing to join with the hon. Gentleman in a campaign to try to convince his Front Bench. It is necessary to have these runways in operation by 1980, and I believe that it will be in the interests of people living near Heathrow and various other airports in the South-East to get this airport into operation as quickly as possible.
Mr. Brian Harrison: Will the Secretary of State treat as a matter of urgency the setting up of the authority which will deal with the third London airport? There is already tremendous speculation in land and great worry that, before long, we may find the barriers are down and that development north of the Crouch will take place as well?
Mr. Walker: Yes, I certainly accept the view of the hon. Gentleman, and I very much appreciate and understand the views expressed about the planning dangers of development north of the Crouch. I am well aware of this particular factor. The important thing in a project of this magnitude is to get the effective and right agency set up. It is only a relatively few months since we made the decision to go ahead with this project, and I assure

451
the hon. Gentleman that I recognise the urgency of the matter. We will come to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the word he used throughout his statement—namely Maplin rather than Foulness—will indeed become official? We are glad he has adopted the Opposition's suggestion on this matter. Furthermore, would he agree that there is great danger in leaving open the matter of secondary and associated industry until the airport is open, because planning might be much more difficult at that stage? Finally, would he say something about rail links to London? Has he ruled out the possibility of a rail link which goes right through London, finishes up at Heathrow and has several terminals rather than one terminal?
Mr. Walker: As for the name of the airport, I believe we would all agree that an airport by any name is still an airport. I think it is right to call this Maplin.
Hon. Members: Why?
Sir Bernard Braine: Foulness is a place of wild birds.
Mr. Walker: The birds which will be there in future will be tame ones. With regard to rail links, consultation is taking place with British Rail throughout; but I accept the hon. Gentleman's basic premise that the important thing is to see that the various major airports in London have proper communications with each other, and we shall see to this.
Captain W. Elliot: Could my right hon. Friend give a few more details about the port he has in mind? Does he visualise a great entrepôt port serving the Continent? Secondly, does he visualise its taking deep-draught ships, for example half-million-ton oil tankers? Has he considered the implications of such tankers coming up the Channel and through the Straits?
Mr. Walker: All shipping considerations will be very carefully borne in mind. The P.L.A. considers that its main sphere of activity in this matter will be in terms of a container port, with the possibility of its being an oil terminal, but not an oil refinery, with oil being piped to locations where refining takes place. The
452
whole proposal will come under the close scrutiny required by the Harbours Act before a final decision is made.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that though an airport is bound to generate employment opportunities, there are other areas more deserving of employment generation? Will he also bear in mind that the Southend area has already had the V.A.T. centre, and will he in future use his strongest possible persuasive powers to make sure that any other large employment-generating project will go elsewhere?
Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no immediate intention of having the third London airport at either Nuneaton or Worcester.
Mr. Allason: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Government have adequate powers to require air operators to move to the new airport? Would he give early warning as to who is to be required to move so that these operators do not come back and say, "I have now spent vast capital sums in my present location and cannot move."
Mr. Walker: I assure my hon. Friend that the operators are well aware of the Government's firm intention to develop Foulness. I also believe that Foulness, when developed, will at that moment in time be the best international airport in the world and will have the best communications to an international city. On this basis I do not think there will be any problem with operators.
Mr. Small: Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the problem of a great deal of speculation and people being "out for grab" on the lines of the way in which the Continental Shelf was put up for auction? Will he turn his mind to the question of the private capital which was attached to the Continental Shelf matter, and take this opportunity to say whether he intends to put the whole lot up for auction?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman will have in mind my decision announced today that I considered it would be in the public interest for this to remain in the public sector at the present time. I hope that this will satisfy the hon. Gentleman that I have the public interest very much in my mind.
Mr. Crouch: My right hon. Friend has properly mentioned the problems surrounding the Crouch. I wonder if I could remind him that there is another Crouch and that in Kent we hope he will not neglect the interests of all those people in the north-east corner of Kent who will suffer noise pollution unless their requirements are taken into account in the planning? I was very glad to hear his emphasis on the title he bears, namely the Secretary of State for the Environment. He will be under great economic pressure in the coming years from private, and even possibly public, sectors and I hope he will never forget that he is responsible for the environment and that we shall always regard his work for the environment as most important.
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. So far as the people of Kent are concerned, I can assure him that we have pledged ourselves to take fully into consideration and to discuss with the Kent County Council the position of Kent. The object of the flying paths we choose will be the minimum of noise. I hope that technical developments between now and 1980 will mean that even the projections of noise forecast in the original Roskill Report will prove to be exaggerated, and that the noise effects of the Maplin project will be even less than was originally anticipated.
Mr. Sandelson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern about prospects of employment at Heathrow as a result of the development of the third London airport? Would he give some reassurance about future employment prospects for those now employed at Heathrow?
Mr. Walker: With the general expansison of air travel, both internationally and domestically, I think that there need be no concern for those employed in these spheres.
Mr. Burden: May I further impress on my right hon. Friend the necessity of consulting Kent County Council about the noise hazard? May I ask my right hon. Friend especially to do his utmost to ensure that the runways are so placed that there is not a considerable noise level over the highly-populated Medway towns?
Mr. Walker: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's concern. I can assure him that we shall keep very closely in touch with the Kent authorities. Our objective will be the minimum of noise.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Can the Secretary of State give some idea of his 15-year thinking on the respective rôles to be played by Heathrow and the proposed third airport?
Mr. Walker: On all projections, the third airport is desperately needed. Unless we have it the injection of traffic into existing airports will be such as to make the lives of those living near those airports even worse than it is at present. In terms of regional planning and environmental effects, I am sure that it is right to progress firmly with the third London airport.
Sir S. McAdden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greatest concentration of population in the area of the proposed third London airport is in my constituency and that the apprehensions of my constituents will not be allayed until my right hon. Friend can give clear indications of where the runways will be, where the noise contour levels will be, and so on? While we appreciate my right hon. Friend's dedication to the environment, it is lines on a map and practical tests alone which will satisfy my constituents, and the sooner that it is done the better.
Mr. Walker: I am well aware of this fact, and my hon. Friend reminds me of it constantly. Our objective is to see that the runway is sited in the best possible place in terms of environmental noise.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman now comment on my right hon. Friend's first question, asking whether the Secretary of State is in a position to make a statement on costs at present?
Mr. Walker: No. There are a great many factors involved in terms of the extent to which land is to be reclaimed and of options on future reclamation of land. But I shall keep the House fully informed as progress is made.
Mr. Simeons: Now that my right hon. Friend has fixed a date for the opening of the runway, will he be as specific about the impact on other airports, such as

455
Luton? Will he say, for example, who as the control? There is complete confusion about this, following local government reorganization. Secondly, will he consult his right hon. Friend about the implementation of clause 29 of the Civil Aviation Bill in this respect?
Mr. Walker: I undertake to consult with my right hon. Friend when I discover what Clause 29 of the Civil Aviation Bill is about. As for Luton, my hon. Friend will know that there is a public inquiry going on there at present, and I am unable to say anything because it is my duty to act in a judicial capacity following that inquiry.
Mr. Rankin: Are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that air pollution will be a diminishing factor in the development of aircraft? Can the right hon. Gentleman find some way of ensuring that Scotland shares to some little extent in this new expansion?
Mr. Walker: I believe that Scotland will obtain its share of international air travel, like any other part of the country.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we must move on.

BILL PRESENTED
  LEGAL ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE BILL
  Mr. Attorney General, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell and Mr. Patrick Jenkin, presented a Bill to make further provision for the purpose of making legal advice and assistance more readily available, including the employment of solicitors by the Law Society or the Law Society of Scotland for that purpose and for the purpose of giving legal aid; and to make provision for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 76]

TRANSPLANTS OF HUMAN ORGANS
3.54 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to implement the recommendations of the committee chaired by Sir Hector Maclennan on the transplant of human organs.
This is not the occasion to go into the ethical, medical or legal aspects of this very complex subject of transplants. It is up to me to present a prima facie case in support of my request for leave to introduce this Bill.
The present position is that some 2,000 people between the ages of 15 and 55, who could be saved, die each year of kidney disease. In those cases, only one organ is diseased. Nothing else is wrong with them. Those 2,000 people have productive lives, except that they suffer from a kidney disease. That in itself is a fairly serious matter which warrants parliamentary discussion; these are people who could be saved. Society would go to a great deal of trouble to rescue them from disaster at sea, involving a great deal of expense on helicopters, or from any other form of disaster.
Another aspect of the present situation is the appalling state of affairs which now confronts our hospitals. A hospital has to telephone the next of kin at the moment of maximum grief to ask the terrible question, "Can we have the organs of your loved one?" It may be that there would be a very different answer either the day before or the following day. But I have spoken both to those who have regretted that they have said, "No", and to those who have regretted at this moment of grief that they have said, "Yes". Families are in no state to reach a rational decision on what is a very personal problem within an hour or two of hearing of an accident. The stark truth is that it is from accidents, and unexpected death involving young people, that surgeons obtain the organs that they need if they are to help save the lives of others.
There is something to be said for implementing the Maclennan Report in order to do away with this quick decision-making. After all, we all think that accidents happen not to ourselves but to other people. None of us expects to be

457
involved in an accident. Inevitably, there will be this surprise, and that is one reason why the House should give me leave to introduce my Bill. Families could make their decisions in a cooler moment
I must be quite frank with the House. The Maclennan Committee was divided about whether there should be a system of contracting in voluntarily or, as Professor Roy Calne, a constituent of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), believes, a contracting-out system whereby everyone who has not taken a decision in his or her lifetime before being faced with an accident, may have his or her body touched; those contracting out, having met with an accident, can ensure that no part of it shall go to surgeons.
I admit that in asking the House for leave to introduce a Bill designed to implement the Maclennan Report, I am seeking the best of both worlds. I believe that we should have both a voluntary system of contracting into a central registry at Bristol, and a system of contracting out. At any rate, this would be the basis for an experiment. But, as with so many other matters dealing with transplants, it is up to this House to decide what it wants rather than for me to make any firm recommendation on this very difficult point in asking leave to introduce my Bill.
I wish to draw the attention of the Department to the fact that this is no radical proposal. Denmark, France, Italy, Sweden and Israel, and many other countries, have systems of contracting out and, consequently, have far more organs available for cases of the kind to which I have referred than we do in this country. The implementation of the Maclennan Report really is no great radical measure.
The surgeons who have to do this job are saying desperately, "We are now able to save only about 10 per cent. of those whom we could save." I suggest not immodestly that, when surgeons involved in transplants are united in wanting a Measure of this kind, the burden of proof is on the Department to say why it does not want it rather than on us to say why we do. I hope that the Department will take some opportunity to explain its attitude, if it is not prepared to facilitate the passage of this Bill.
458
Since I last introduced the Bill, the Bar Council has come forward with proposals for a new Organ Transplant Act. The supply of donors might be substantially increased by more satisfactory legal arrangements which commanded greater public confidence. This is neither the time nor the place to go into the details of what the Bar Council wants, but I believe that I am correct in saying that, since publication of the Brodrick Committee's Report, there has been a strong feeling among coronors that the law should be altered in the direction that the Maclennan Committee suggests.
It is no answer—I do not suppose that the Under-Secretary would say this—that, because we have this week set up a register in Bristol, therefore these problems are solved. Though I very much applaud what is happening there, it will make no difference to the total supply of organs.
Much of the discussion has been conducted in terms of what is good or bad for donors. I regret this. I should have hoped that a little more attention would be paid to the needs and requirements of recipients. Like many hon. Members, I have had drawn to my attention all too often terrible cases of parents who feel that 20-year-olds could have been saved and led a productive life had organs been available, thousands of which now either go up in flames or are buried, to rot away, underground.
I ask hon. Members who are doubtful about the proposal which I am putting forward to imagine a situation in which a relative, a son or daughter, could be kept alive, for a productive life, but for the want of one organ. In that situation what would they do? I think that most of us would be very clear that, however sad an accident might be, we would want for a member of our own family one of those parts which would be destroyed. This view has been accepted by many religious bodies, including the Roman Catholic Church. There is, in fact, a papal encyclical on this matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) knows.
I have, somewhat awkwardly, to raise the question of cost. When it is a matter of saving human life or not, it is embarrassing to mention the cost. However, the Under-Secretary knows that in the

459
Health Sercice there are extremely complex questions of priority. Renal dialysis is exceedingly expensive. Many people who could be saved are not being saved. Transplantation is much less expensive and, therefore, should be rationally considered.
I can understand that the Government are worried about public attitudes. It may allay their fears, if I say that in the summer of 1969 I spent 43 days in West Lothian carrying out a serious survey of 1,000 homes asking about attitudes to contracting in and contracting out. Of the 1,000, 364 were definitely in favour of a contracting-out system, 312 would have gone for contracting in, 116 were totally against, and the balance, 208, had not made up their minds, though they included some who had thought a great deal about the subject after a television programme, "Panorama" had explained the issues at that time.
I do not think that the Department would find the British public nearly as antagonistic to what Sir Hector Maclennan and his surgeon colleagues have suggested as they might suppose. Therefore, I offer the Bill to the House in the certainty that it ought to be discussed and given a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dalyell, Mr. Cronin, Mr. Lane, Mr. Maclennan, Mr. Meacher, Mr. O'Malley, Dr. David Owen, Mr. Pavitt, Miss Pike, Sir M. Stoddart-Scott and Dr. Trafford.

TRANSPLANT OF HUMAN ORGANS
Bill to implement the recommendations of the committee chaired by Sir Hector Maclennan on the transplant of human organs, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th February and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (CODE OF PRACTICE)
Mr. Speaker: Before calling the Secretary of State to move the Motion, I should inform the House that I have selected the Amendment standing in the names of the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
4.5 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move,
That the Code of Industrial Relations Practice, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.
Before coming to the substance and exposition and argument, it would be for the convenience of the House if I said something quickly about the timetable. Subject to the approval of both Houses, I hope to bring the Code into force on the 28th of this month, because I believe that the sooner it is in operation the better.
The House will recall that the Consultative Document on this Code was published in June, 1971. I think that I can fairly say that it has aroused widespread attention and interest, and that this interest was not just a thing of the moment but was maintained. In fact, by the end of 1971 we had distributed more than 370,000 copies of the Consultative Document and had received over 200 sets of comments at headquarters from national, industrial and commercial organisations, professional bodies and individuals, and the regional offices of my Department received many more comments from local organisations throughout the country. Many of these comments were in great detail. They had, clearly, been based on a most thorough paragraph by paragraph study of the document. Therefore, I should like to thank all the individuals and organisations who responded to my invitation to comment and consult about this document.
The Consultative Document was also the subject of discussion at scores of meetings and seminars up and down the country organised by individual employers, by employers' associations, by institutions of various kinds, and also in some cases, I hope and believe, by trade unions. So we have had a ferment of activity and discussion about this matter since last June.

461
In addition, the Consultative Document was debated both in this House and in another place before I had to bring the views together and produce the version which I am bringing before the House for approval today. The House will therefore appreciate that I had the benefit of a large volume and very wide cross-section of comment on which to base this final version. As I have said before, I very much regret that the T.U.C. and its main constituent unions did not see fit to join in this consultation. Nevertheless, I think that through the debates in this House and in other ways there has been a good opportunity for me to take account of trade union views as much as of other views on this subject.
The T.U.C. has recently produced its guide for negotiators, a document which I very much welcome. Anyone reading that document, our original Consultative Document and now the final Code can see that, despite the lack of formal consultation, we have evidently not altogether failed to take notice of each other at various stages. Indeed, I think that there is a reasonably satisfactory measure of common ground between the T.U.C.'s document and this final version. I hope that that will continue and increase.
It is a matter of regret that the Opposition have not felt able to allow this Code to go through without the objection expressed in their Amendment. I believe that the Code contains not only proposals which, if widely practised, would lead to a much better state of industrial and human relations but proposals setting forth for general practice and adoption many things which trade unions collectively and trade unionists individually have wanted and fought for, and in many cases succeeded in getting but in some cases not, for many years.
The Code is in no way tied to the procedures and machineries within the Industrial Relations Act to which the Opposition object, rightly or wrongly. The importance of the link of this Code to the Act is that in future when there is any review of an industrial dispute—forget the new procedures; think only of the old ones, committees of inquiry, the various conciliation processes, and so on—there will he a national reference standard to which all such inquiries and conciliations shall refer. I should have thought that that was something which
462
the Opposition would have been able to welcome, or at least not to reject out of hand in the way the Amendment seeks to do.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best thing to have done was to have entered into discussions with the Trades Union Council before there was any question of an Industrial Relations Bill? It would then have been possible to work out an agreement between the trade unions, the Government and undoubtedly the employers' associations for a code of practice to which the trade unions would never have objected. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that the Code should not be considered in conjunction with the Act; but it has to be so considered because the Act lays down quite clearly that the procedures will be used in the courts.
Mr. Carr: Of course I appreciate that. I did not say that the Code should not be taken in conjunction with the Act. I said that the Code, in the sense that it is backed by the Act, is not associated with the particular procedures and proceedings in the Act to which the Opposition object. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman considers that it is still worth while to try to maintain or to resurrect the canard that I was not prepared to consult the T.U.C. If the hon. Gentleman is honest with himself, he must know that it was entirely the other way round.
We were elected as a Government on precise commitments of principle, just as on a number of occasions the Labour Party was elected with precise commitments on principle; for example, to nationalise industries. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office they were not prepared to consult about the basic principles of the proposals on which they were elected. They were prepared to consult on the details of the implementation of those proposals. All that I ever made clear to the T.U.C. was that I could not bring into question the basic principles on which we were elected, the basic pillars of the Act. Everybody knows that the structure of the Act, which is created round the pillars, is of immense importance. I invited consultation about that. I made it clear that I would welcome such consultation, but that was rejected by the T.U.C. I do not want to resurrect

463
that issue; it is now history. But I cannot allow it to be said that the lack of consultation on the Act was the fault of the Government.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Conservative Party was elected on the specific promise that it would introduce this Measure. Would he accept that the Conservative Party gave no indication to the nation that it was going to interfere with free collective bargaining in the way that the Government have interfered with it since the election? That is an important matter in industrial relations, and their interference has completely altered the situation at the time of the General Election.
Mr. Carr: I am astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. We pledged that we would have nothing to do with a statutory incomes policy, that we would throw overboard the statutory, detailed intervention in which hon. Gentlemen opposite indulged when they were the Government. We pledged that we would return to free collective bargaining, and that is what we have done. Collective bargaining is now free and uninterfered with in a way in which it had not been since there was last a Tory Government, in 1964. In whomsoever's mouth it lies to accuse the Government of interfering too much in collective bargaining, it certainly does not lie in the mouth of any member of the Labour Party, in the House or outside it, to do so.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
Mr. Carr: No. I want to get on with my speech about the Code of Practice, which is what we are here to discuss.
We have had a large volume and a wide cross-section of comment on the Consultative Document. I am glad to say that the main message was a general welcome for the purpose and content of the document, and an endorsement for the basic structure of the Code. There were, however, many ideas put forward for changes of emphasis, and also of substance in important respects. Many of those have been acted upon, and they now appear in the final version for which I am asking approval today.
464
I said at the beginning when the Consultative Document was published, and I repeated it a number of times during the consultative period, that I wanted, and would be glad, to take account of comments on it, and I assure the House that those opinions have been studied most carefully. I hope and believe that that shows up in the final draft before the House. I hope, too, that the differences between the earlier and the final documents have given some real faith to the value and reality of consultation, because that is the truth, and it wants saying.
Mr. James Sillars: The qualification in the document about managerial responsibility says in paragraph 41:
"Where practicable, management should provide occupational pension and sick pay schemes."
Was the qualification inserted because the Government thought it should be there, or was it in response to a request by the C.B.I., for example?
Mr. Carr: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my speech I shall deal with that and a number of other points.
What I thought I could most usefully do for the House was to draw attention to the main changes, but not all the changes, which have resulted from the consultation which has been taking place on the original Consultaive Document.
First, let me deal with the basic structure of the Code as we now have it. The only major structural change is the new introductory chapter. It deals with the point made in the foreword to the Consulative Document. In particular it states the two main themes which underlie the Code:
"(i) the vital rôle of collective bargaining carried out in a reasonable and constructive manner between employers and strong representative trade unions;
(ii) the importance of good human relations between employers and employees in every establishment, based on trust and confidence."
I quote those because it is important to realise that the Code is based on two themes: the collective conduct of industrial relations, and the underlying personal basis of it, because in the end the collective institutions are there to serve the interests of individual men and women. It is therefore important to lay

465
down both the collective and the personal aspects as being the underlying themes of the Code.
Apart from the introductory chapter, the only other significant structural change is the bringing together in one chapter what were previously, in the Consultative Document, two chapters on the grievance and disputes procedures. Those procedures are closely linked, and the change to bring them together makes for clearer presentation and is generally more satisfactory all round.
Let me now say something about the style of the document. We felt from the beginning that it was essential that it should be written in plain English which everyone could understand, as opposed to legalistic phraseology. When we drafted the Consultative Document we had that in mind, and I think that it was on the whole approved on that account by those who commented upon it. Nevertheless, I remember the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), in particular, saying that it included certain clichés and little sermons. I hope that in the final version at least some of those have been removed and replaced. One can always question editing ad infinitum with advantage, but I believe that we now have a document which is much leaner in its wording and structure, much clearer and more incisive, and that this, too, is a real advance on the original Consultative Document. That has been our intention, and if we have not succeeded to perfection, I believe and hope that we have succeeded to some extent.
I now turn from structures and style to the substance of the changes which have been made in various areas of the proposals. I would first like to deal with those which come under the general heading of the joint responsibility for industrial relations and the avoidance of paternalism. Under this heading, there was criticism of the Consultative Document from the beginning—in particular. that there was failure to recognise fully the legitimate interests of unions in personnel policy, their responsibility for maintaining good industrial relations or the extent to which aspects of personnel policy should be discussed with the unions and determined through collective bargains. The criticism related also to, for example, the need for grievance and disciplinary procedures to be jointly agreed.
466
As I assured the House when we discussed the Consultative Document on 18th October, these failures were unintentional. Having heard the criticisms and the points made, I accepted that there was some validity in them. So we have tried in this final version to correct this failure. We do this at the beginning in the fifth paragraph of the introduction, where we state:
"Good industrial relations are a joint responsibility."
That is the basic statement. In other places throughout the text—for example, in relation to employment policies, payment systems in dealing with redundancy, safety and health, consultation and communication and various other ways—we have also specifically stressed the joint nature of responsibility.
I therefore hope that the House will feel that we have in that respect gone a very long way to meet the needs and the criticisms, which, on reflection, I believed had some validity, even though the errors, as I think they were, in the Consultative Document were entirely unintended in the first place.
As for the flexibility of the Code's application, the Code, as stated in the Consultative Document and as I made clear in the debate on that document, needs to deal with all sorts and sizes of establishment, all forms of work and all sectors of the economy. This is, of course, what poses one of the very biggest problems in drafting it in nice, clear, precise, lean terms. Nevertheless, flexibility is necessary because the Code has to cover all forms of employment.
The Consultative Document was criticised on the ground that it was not flexible enough to cater for all needs in this way. It was suggested that some of these detailed provisions were inappropriate or unnecessary—for example, for small firms—that the Code should recognise that different enterprises of all sizes are at different stages of development, that not all can be expected to implement the whole of the Code straight away or at the same moment, or that the standards laid clown in the Code must not be so rigid as to preclude innovation, experiment and the adoption of more advanced practices, all of which are, of course, immensely important.

467
I felt that there was some substance in these points, and so the revised version tries to meet them, first of all in the "Application and Use" paragraph of the introduction. But I must maintain the position that the Code has to be universal in its application if it is to be effective. We have to say, and do say firmly in the introduction, that any adaptations or simplifications to meet the needs particularly of small establishments should be consistent with the general intention of the Code.
Also, we have tried to meet the point about flexibility at various points in the text in relation to specific proposals; for example, manpower planning, consultative arrangements and grievance, dispute and disciplinary procedures. Here again, we have made a genuine effort to meet the point about the need for flexibility without taking away, I hope, the essential force of example and standard which the Code must set universally throughout employment.
I come now to the point which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) mentioned—the question of the Code's recommendations regarding pensions and sick pay. I should like to deal at the same time with the recommendations about the equalisation of conditions and status between different grades of workers—what we used to call the blue-collar/white-collar differential, words which, I think mistakenly, appeared in the draft Consultative Document but do not appear in the final Code.
I received expressions of particular concern from the C.B.I. and from employers generally about the great potential cost of these recommendations that occupational pension and sick pay schemes should be provided as a general rule, and the cost also of the proposal that status and conditions should be unified. Also, some queried whether I was right in thinking that there was any casual link between this sort of provision and good industrial and human relations. Let me say straight away that I remain convinced that these proposals are good practice, that they do pay the right dividends in good industrial and personal relations and that I was not prepared to sacrifice recommending them in the Code in any way.
468
Thus, paragraphs 41 and 42 of the revised Code retain the full substance of my original proposals, and both are now subject not only to the qualification "where practicable", which appears everywhere, to take into account the need for flexibility but also the qualification that when improvements of this kind are to be introduced their cost should be taken into account as part of the total labour cost. I believe that this is right and a necessary statement of an inescapable fact.
Although opinions may differ about how much money is available at any given time for distribution to add to the labour costs of any enterprise, there must at any given time be a limit to it. There have to be difficult judgments of priority about whether one allocates part of the resources available to straight pay increases or to fringe benefits and the things which we are talking about here. This is an inescapable fact of life, and it is right to state it in the Code. When they come to negotiate about these things, both sides must face the fact that one can only have a quart out of a quart pot; it is for them in their negotiations to decide how that quart is to be distributed among the different possible purposes to which it could be applied.
The consultative arrangements are dealt with in paragraphs 65 to 70, which have been completely re-written compared to the Consultative Document. As to the comments that I have received, the proposals in this section—particularly the proposal that all establishments over 250 should have a consultative committee—were felt to be too inflexible. I was told from many quarters that such proposals did not take into account the varied methods of consultation already working satisfactorily throughout many parts of employment, and also that they would not give the necessary scope, let alone encouragement, to new methods of consultation, such as the development of briefing groups. It was drawn to my attention that what some people had thought to be rigid talk about consultative committees had created a fear in trade union circles that we might be seeking to promote consultative committees in opposition to trade unions.
That was certainly not the intention, and here again I believe that there has been substance in the comments I have

469
received. Hence the re-writing of this section of the Code, and I hope that the new form meets all the criticisms.
It continues to recognise that arrangements for consultation should meet the needs of establishments and not follow a rigid pattern. But it also continues to lay down that there must be systematic arrangements—that, whatever they are, they must be systematic—when one is dealing with an establishment of more than 250 people.
This figure of 250 is arbitrary. Any other could have been chosen. It can always be altered if it proves to be wrong. We have made the point that one should have consultation in smaller establishments. This appears in paragraph 56, which clearly lays down that all establishments, whatever their size, should go in for consultation. While sticking to the idea that wherever the figure of 250 is exceeded there should be a systematic system of consultation, we have met the criticisms by being flexible, by referring to the appointment of representatives and so on.
Mr. Adam Butler: I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 67, which relates to joint consultative committees and says:
"The arrangements should not be used to bypass or discourage trade unions."
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are many works councils in existence, with representatives from the shop floor elected by the shop floor, though not in all cases are those representatives on the works councils the actual trade union representatives. I hope that this sentence will not discourage that particular practice.
Mr. Carr: It is not meant to do so. The whole object is not to impose a particular pattern in any particular place. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite find this difficult to believe, the whole object is not to interfere where things are working satisfactorily. We therefore do not want to force change where people are happy with what they already have, and that is why we have a greater degree of flexibility.
Where there is in existence the sort of works councils to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) referred and where they are
470
working well, it would be ridiculous—it would be worse than ridiculous; it would be positively harmful—for the Code to force change where unions, employees and managers are happy with the arrangements which, in their view, are working well.
Mr. Walter Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of existing arrangements. One, perhaps the main, criticism of consultation generally in industry is that far too many managements look upon it as a means of drawing people together to tell them what has been decided by management. This is not consultation. I shall be happy to learn if the Secretary of State means what he says in this document about real consultation taking place, which means drawing people together at an early stage, before decisions are made.
Mr. Carr: That is certainly what I meant. If we could force people to behave as we would always like them to behave, we would be very clever indeed, but it is beyond our powers to do that. Certainly consultation which is not meaningful can do more harm than good. Indeed, it is better not to have any consultation than to have dishonest consultation. It must be real if it is to be worth while. We are stressing the importance of the need for real consultation and are saying that there should be flexibility in the way it is adapted to particular circumstances.
This conveniently brings me to one of the most difficult questions with which we had to deal, and that is the one which goes under the name of status quo. Before people get excited about this they should realise—particularly hon. Members, and perhaps especially those who, like myself, have lived most of our lives in contact with the engineering industry—that over a wide sector of industry people do not know what one is talking about when one refers to the status quo.
In fact, in its acute form—acute in the sense of the degree of detailed importance that is attached to it—the status quo is not of such widespread concern as one might imagine from the amount one hears of it in the engineering industry; yet it goes to the very root of the matter and also to the very root of this whole question of consultation.

471
The burden of the comments that I received was very mixed, controversial and conflicting. There was no common thread. The more I studied the comments and thought about them the more I realised that one of the difficulties about the status quo concept lay in generalising about it. Indeed, with respect to the engineering industry, this is one of the difficulties it gets into.
The particular form of status quo which is desirable is, I believe, highly peculiar and selective in relation to the particular establishment in which it must be applied, and this becomes difficult when one tries to draw up a status quo agreement which must deal with a vast area of undertakings in which the types of production, methods of working and so on are very different.
I therefore came to the conclusion that I could not generalise about the status quo as such and that all I could do in the Code was firmly to lay down the basic principle that the achievement of change is a joint concern of management and employees, that it should be carried out in a way which pays regard to the joint nature of that concern and that major changes should not be made without prior discussion with employees or their representatives. That is, I believe, the basic principle which wants asserting.
The definition of what constitutes major changes—the level at which they should be discussed and about which there should be consultation—must be special to the nature of almost each undertaking and is therefore properly and really only adequately defined in detail at individual undertaking and perhaps sometimes at individual plant, level.
Mr. Frederick Lee: What the right hon. Gentleman has been saying on this subject is unexceptionable. The point about the whole status quo argument in engineering is that the employers say that they have the right to change existing customs and practices and that the unions can afterwards take the issue through the constitution. What the right hon. Gentleman has been saying is right, and his is the precise argument that the unions have been putting to the employers. who have refused to accept the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation and the whole basis of the York Memorandum, which in engineering has gone.
Mr. Carr: The right hon. Gentleman might have more status to represent the engineering unions than I have to speak for the Engineering Employers Federation, which right I have none. What we are doing in this Code—I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we should do this—is to say that if we establish the basic principle which I have laid down and to which I have referred, each individual industry and undertaking can, based on that principle, create agreements which are suitable to its particular needs.
I come to the question of arbitration, a point which is particularly dealt with in paragraph 129. The comments that we received contained criticisms of the proposal in the Consultative Document that disputes procedures should include arbitration as a final stage. It was argued that this would act as a disincentive to meaningful bargaining at earlier stages. I accept this as being a valid point, for if one knows that at the end of the day one must go to arbitration there is bound to be a great temptation not to negotiate responsibly and seriously but to leave it to the arbitrator at the end. We have tried to meet this criticism in paragraph 129 by confining the use of arbitration to circumstances in which both parties agree that it should be used. I still, however, stress the value of arbitration. It is valuable. We should tend to use it more rather than less and, particularly, we should use it in cases of disputes of rights.
We have lost something in British industrial relations by our failure to differentiate as much as some other countries between the two main types of dispute: a dispute of interest, which really is a matter for collective bargaining, and which is difficult to put to arbitration as a general principle—although where parties want it I would support it—and the other type of dispute, the dispute as of right as to the meaning of an agreement. Where there is dispute as to the meaning, surely in a modern society it would be much to our advantage if both parties were to agree to go to an independent arbitrator, either a single arbitrator or some board, such as the Arbitration Board which exists under the new name for the old Industrial Court, because this seems to be a more effective and civilised way of settling disputes about what parties really mean when they come to

473
no agreement. Therefore, I commend particularly the use of arbitration in disputes of right.
Mr. Skinner: is the Secretary of State aware that there has been a lot of talk about the use of arbitration in the miners' dispute, and that there is an apparent unwillingness on the part of the miners' union leadership, with which I fully concur, to go to arbitration on the present offer? May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that during the overtime ban—indeed, in the first fortnight of the overtime ban—in North Derbyshire, under another form of arbitration whereby the areas had certain autonomy, the National Coal Board in North Derbyshire broke three separate agreements, not once but more than a score of times, at nearly every pit in North Derbyshire, and that the general secretary of the North Derbyshire area requested the use of the arbitration machinery in order to attempt to get the £250,000 which had been lost to the miners as a result of the breaking of these three agreements? The Coal Board refused to arbitrate. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman why.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is inclined to be rather long in his interventions.
Mr. Skinner: I am just concluding, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is very important when considering the general aspects of arbitration within the miners' dispute generally. The Coal Board refused to arbitrate because it was the union's turn to select the arbitrator.
Mr. Carr: I would be wrong to go into the merits of not only the coal mining dispute as a whole but also no doubt a very important but inner subsidiary part of it, about which I certainly would not pretend to he informed in detail. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that, whatever may be the rights or wrongs of the matter, if the Coal Board and the union were to follow the recommendations of this Code we should all be better off.
On the main issue of arbitration, the basic claim, I think that the hon. Member would at least agree that he has never heard from me any blame for miners not
474
using this. I have expressed disappointment, perhaps, that they have not done so, but in not using it they are acting within the terms of their agreement, because the arbitration agreed within the coal industry is agreed to be set up by both sides but the agreement also lays down that it is not compulsory on either side. Therefore, however ill advised I think they may have been, and however disappointed I am at their attitude, I certainly fully accept that the N.U.M. has an absolute right under the agreement to elect not to make use of the arbitration machinery. That is why I have said much less about it in this case than I have done in the past, when I felt that the parties had definitely agreed to use arbitration and were refusing to do so.
Finally, I refer to the question of disclosure of information, dealt with in paragraphs 96–98 of the Code. I stress again, as I had to with the Consultative Document, that this is only provisional and only a brief outline, because this subject is under examination by the C.I.R. It was sent to the C.I.R. by my predecessor.
Mr. Heffer: A long time ago.
Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman says, "A long time ago". But the fact that my predecessor felt that the reference was needed, and the fact of the length of time that the C.I.R. is taking in bringing forth its report, is evidence of the complexity and very difficult nature of the issues involved. I hope to have this report—as I understand from the C.I.R.—in the spring of this year; perhaps not until late spring, but I should have it by then. I felt sure that it was not sensible to do more than put an outline into the Code until the C.I.R. had reported. But when the report is available more discussions will take place on the basis of another draft consultative document, and we shall produce a final code to take the place of this one as soon as possible.
I have explained to the House the main changes that have been made. I believe that the effect of this Code is already to be seen. It has aroused a great deal of interest, a much greater degree of interest and activity than I had dared to hone for. There has been a ferment of activity. This has been shown

475
in the demand for the Consultative Document, the numberless meetings and conferences up and down the country to which I have referred, and by the fact that the T.U.C. has issued its guide. In all these ways the Code is having its effect.
I cannot help putting this question to the House and the country: would all that is going on now have gone on but for the Code and but for the Act? This is really the basic philosophy behind what we have been doing—the belief that when one has a very old established system, as our industrial relations system is, where for the last 20 years people have looked at it and recognised the need for changes, one reaches the point where the system is incapable of change from within unless and until some pressure is applied to it from without. I have no doubt that the Act and perhaps particularly the Code have generated this degree of activity, this ferment of thinking. For management, they have raised the consideration of industrial and human relations right up to board level, which was the main point made by the Donovan Commission report. I believe that we have achieved this.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to overgild the lily, because in doing so he does a disservice to the enormous amount of work done either through technical colleges, such as the Birmingham technical colleges, or by firms of industrial consultants. We had a conference on every point.
Mr. Carr: I accept that. I would not wish to gild the lily. The hon. Gentleman obviously wants me not to derogate from what was taking place beforehand anyhow. That is true. I am not saying that there was not some progress. Of course there was progress. But the degree of activity and interest and the level it has taken have been put into a new orbit as a result of the Code and the Act which lies behind it.
The Code will not be perfect. I am sure that it is not perfect and that we shall want to change and add to it as we learn from experience. Flexible means are provided for doing just that. But I am sure also that if the practices outlined in the Code become widely adopted and typical of the average standards and not just the best standards throughout British
476
employment, industrial and human relations in Britain will not only be more peaceful but will be more satisfying and interesting and the whole country will be more prosperous. I ask the House to approve the Code.
4.50 p.m.
Mr. Reg Prentice: I beg to move to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to approve a code of industrial relations practice which forms an integral part of the Industrial Relations Act, 1971.
I hope that the House will permit me at least one moment of nostalgia. It is about 7½ years since I spoke on industrial relations from this Box in debates in which the Secretary of State sometimes took part. The stock joke on these occasions is for the speaker to say, "As I was saying when I was interrupted …" It does not apply in this case, because in those days there was a great deal of common ground in the debates. We had differences of opinion and there were clashes between the two sides, but there was a great deal of common ground both in the House and between both sides of industry about the way in which industrial relations should be handled. The tragedy now is that every debate we have on the right hon. Gentleman's Department is a partisan debate and little scope is left for moderation. Moderation has been dismissed not by us but by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, though not in the speeches the right hon. Gentleman makes. He made a low-key, quiet, moderate speech today, as though he were simply discussing a code of practice completely divorced from the surrounding circumstances.
A parallel has often been drawn between the Code and the rôle of the Highway Code in relation to traffic problems, but a new Highway Code could not be produced without reference to the conditions of the highway, and it is not possible to produce an industrial relations code without reference to the legislation with which it is linked or to the general state of industrial relations resulting from the Government's policies.
May I make it absolutely clear that we on this side are not opposed to the concept of a code of practice. There

477
is a great deal of the contents of the Code with which we agree, but not all. I shall come to some criticisms shortly, and my hon. Friends will make many criticisms later. But many of the objectives of the Code and many of the statements in it command our assent. If it had been introduced early in the life of this Government, divorced from the legislation passed last year, we might well have thought fit to make detailed criticisms but not to divide the House against it. But it is impossible to separate it from the Act.
If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the T.U.C.'s invitation to discuss industrial relations matters when the Government took office, there could have been a different outcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was right in what he said in his intervention. I listened to the Secretary of State's defence, and I have heard him make it before. But the fact is that if the Government had been prepared then to sit down with the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and everyone else concerned in an attempt to implement the Donovon Report, which was produced after the Conservative Party produced "Fair Deal at Work", and to work out such a code of practice, the whole atmosphere of our industrial scene would have been very different. But the Act has been pushed through, and the Code is the child of the Act. The Code was referred to in the Bill, but was not then committed to paper. The Industrial Relations Court and the Industrial Tribunals are required under the Act to have regard to the provisions of the Code, and courts of inquiry, it is suggested, will have regard to its provisions.
The language of the Act has affected the language of the Code. The Code's whole status with the working population is overlaid by the Act with which it is connected and by the bitter arguments that surrounded the passage of the Act. It is overlaid also by the divisive economic and social policies of the Government, and by the fact of a million unemployed. We discuss unemployment very largely in terms of the unemployed and their families, but sometimes we should also have regard to the fear and insecurity among people at work as to whether it will soon be their turn to be unemployed.
478
In that situation extra mistrust enters into all discussions in industry about manpower problems, possible redundancies and all the rest. It is in that atmosphere that the promotion of a new code of practice is extremely difficult. Its credibility, when it comes from the Government, is bound to be in doubt. Similarly, the credibility of the exercise is affected by the Government's abdication from the traditional rôle of peacemaker in industry. I do not imagine that the Code will be discussed in any great detail in the miners' lodges today, when it comes from a Government leaning heavily on the employers' side in the present dispute. The prospect of the Government's being able to give any kind of lead to industry in such a code is bound to be affected by their total policy.
Mr. R. Carr: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that the conciliation services of my Department have been used rather more often since June, 1970, than they were before, and just as frequently at the request of unions. Was not he a member of a Government that leaned so heavily on the employers' side that it ordered all conciliators and arbitrators to abide by the criteria and guidelines of the statutory incomes policy, laid down by a Government of which he was a member? How can he talk about our leaning on the employers' side?
Mr. Prentice: There is a great deal to be said for a prices and incomes policy that has criteria applying fairly to the whole community. The Labour Government deserve every credit for trying to move towards such a result. Although it was not a complete success, neither was it a complete failure, and we have moved as far along the road as any Government of any industrialised country have managed to do.
Mr. Thomas Swain: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Secretary of State, when the right hon. Gentleman boasts about his conciliation machinery, that there has been a strike for 17 weeks at Inghams at Clay Cross? I have invited the right hon. Gentleman's Department to conciliate in it and he has steadfastly refused at all times, saying that the time is not opportune.
Mr. Prentice: Many such examples could be quoted. In the postal dispute last year and the miners' dispute this year the right hon. Gentleman's masterly inactivity has clearly been meant to have the effect of leaning on the side of the employers. That is recognised by everyone who studies the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman is inviting the House to fly away with him on a sort of magic carpet to a never-never land in which we could consider the Code in isolation from all the basic facts of the situation. To some extent we could join him on that journey, because it is worth while to discuss the kind of industrial relations code we should have if the circumstances permitted it to be promoted by the Government with any degree of credibility. Looked at in that context, the document is still very unsatisfactory. There have been a number of changes since the original draft. The right hon. Gentleman has met some of the points made by some of my hon. Friends in the debate in October and has gone some way to link the wording of his Code with the wording of the T.U.C. document, "Good Industrial Relations". Indeed, he practically claimed part-authorship of the T.U.C. document at the end of his speech, which is a confounded cheek in all the circumstances. What the T.U.C. did in producing the document was what it has been doing to the best of its ability since the Donovan Report was published, which is to try to improve industrial relations in accordance with the general recommendations of Donovan, despite the Government's attempt to sabotage its efforts. "Good Industrial Relations" is in that tradition, a document that expresses the aspirations of trade unionists but also stresses their responsibilities and the responsibilities of all sides in industry. I believe it contains, broadly speaking, the kind of proposals that we should be seeing in a Government code.
I want to make four main criticisms of the Government's Code of Practice. There are many more criticisms to be made, and no doubt these will be deployed by my right hon. and hon. Friends. My intention, however, is to concentrate on the main points at which the Code of Practice diverges from the T.U.C. document.
480
First, the T.U.C. document begins with a clear expression of view that there should be an extension of collective bargaining in industry. It expresses that view in most eloquent language, calling for the extension of collective bargaining in two senses—firstly, that it should be extended into firms and industries where it is not practised at present, and secondly, that where it is practised more and more subjects should come within its scope, that more and more decisions affecting working people should be the subject of collective bargaining processes.
The Government's Code of Practice does nothing of the kind. In the introduction, there is a reference to collective bargaining as playing a vital rôle, and in paragraph 71 and onwards there is some definition and delineation of collective bargaining. But at no point does the document say to industry that there should be an extension of collective bargaining and of the processes of bringing the workers, through their representatives, more and more into the decision-making processes. Yet surely this should be the main feature of a code of practice for industry.
My second main criticism is that the Government Code of Practice should clearly state that management should encourage trade union membership. In this respect, the Code seems to be a weaker document than the Consultative Document, which we debated last October. That version said that management should
"… encourage employees to join a recognised union and to play an active part in its work."
In the Code, however, we are told that management should "welcome" membership of a recognised trade union and that if a union is not recognised for negotiating purposes it should respect the right of employees to join a registered union. But this is muffled language compared with the clear statement in the Consultative Document that management should encourage employees to join a union and be active in it.
I believe this to be an example of the Department, in drafting the Code, finding it difficult to reconcile two things. On the one hand, the Code is claimed to be

481
a common sense guide to day-to-day industrial relations at places of work, and, on the other hand, it has to play its part as an integral part of the Industrial Relations Act, particularly in relation to Section 5 of the Act. This is, I assume, where the legal advice available to the right hon. Gentleman may have been to the effect that open encouragement to join a union, as stated in the first version, might fall foul of Section 5. It illustrates the basic dilemma of trying to produce a good working document on industrial relations while imposing an Act of Parliament designed to weaken the trade union movement.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make the point to the employers that the time has come when they have to accept as a fact of life that most trade unions will not register under the Act and that people will have to get on with industrial relations despite the fact that registration will not take place. I hope that the common sense of the T.U.C. in these matters will be referred to the message in the Code of Practice.
Thirdly, large parts of the Code make no reference to participation by unions in decision making. The right hon. Gentleman said that in some parts he had written in the concept of trade union participation where it was not in the original draft. I concede that at once. But in the vitally important sections on the planning and use of manpower—recruitment, selection, training, and so on—there is no reference to participation by the unions in decision making. Even on the important question of redundancy, paragraph 44 seems to be totally inadequate. It says:
"Responsibility for deciding the size of the work force rests with management. But before taking the final decision to make any substantial reduction, management should consult employees or their representatives, unless exceptional circumstances make this impossible.
If ever a paragraph was hedged about with "if" and "buts", it is that one. In contrast, the T.U.C. document calls for involvement of the unions with management at every level in manpower planning and related matters—recruitment, training, redundancy payments, and so forth—and all this is seen as part of the long-term planning process.
It is a matter of urgency that management should be encouraged to involve
482
unions more and more in manpower policy. It is a matter of urgency not simply from the point of view of the rights of the workers, although I am putting that first and foremost, but from the point of view of the whole functioning of industry, particularly at a time when technological change is becoming more rapid and the growth of structural unemployment is presenting problems of very great dimensions.
The very fact that we have recently seen a number of situations where the workers have refused to accept redundancy notices and have organised "sit-ins" at their places of work, resisting the automatic right of management to declare them redundant, illustrates the need and the legitimate demand of the workers through their representatives to be consulted at all stages in this process. But situations should not have to reach a crisis point. These questions should be a matter of full joint consultation right through all the stages and not just in a period of threatened redundancy.
Mr. R. Carr: The right hon. Gentleman is making a fair statement on this point. I do not want any misunderstanding. I think perhaps he has not taken in the point that in the section on employment policy and in other sections there are a few general paragraphs which apply throughout that and the other sections. Paragraph 25, which is in the section on employment policies, says:
"Management should initiate and accept primary responsibility for these policies. But they should be developed in consultation or negotiation, as appropriate, with employee representatives."
If it was not clear before that this was meant to apply to the whole of the rest, I make it clear now.
Mr. Prentice: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that this applies to the sections on recruitment, training and the rest?
Mr. R. Carr indicated assent.
Mr. Prentice: If so, it has been misunderstood not only by me but by many who have commented on the Code in the unions and elsewhere. They have not recognised it as so; I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that a person will look at a section which affects him and his particular problem, rather than at the whole document. It would

483
surely be much better, therefore, if such a provision were written into each section, stipulating that the unions should be consulted.
The fourth main difference between the Government document and the T.U.C. document is the failure of the Code of Practice to include the concept of the status quo. I found the right hon. Gentleman's remarks today rather disappointing. In the debate on 18th October he seemed to be sympathetic toward the idea. True, he told the House he had received representations for and against, but it led some of us to think that he might be more positive in his approach.
He has referred to paragraph 52 which says:
"Major changes in working arrangements should not be made by management without prior discussion with employees or their representatives."
He should go on to say something to the effect that if there is a difference between managements and the workers' representatives which cannot be resolved at once, the practise or agreement which existed prior to the proposal should continue to operate until either a settlement is reached or the agreed procedures have been exhausted. That is the argument in the engineering industry. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it was a rather esoteric argument but it is something which should be of general application.
We are asking that management in general should recognise that their management prerogative should be limited, to the extent that if they make a proposal for change which is resisted then it ought not to be implemented until the agreed procedures have been exhausted or until some compromise has been negotiated between the parties. If that were put into practice it would strengthen the procedures for settling grievances and disputes. It would lead to both parties respecting what was finally agreed and place renewed emphasis on the need for them to do so.
It would involve a partial abdication of the management prerogative. This could have been in the document. From what the Minister said in October I think he was contemplating the possibilities of putting ibis or something like it into the
484
document, but he appears to have retreated from that because of the pressure to which he has been subjected, presumably from the C.B.I. and elsewhere. In doing so he has neglected the chance to do something in the interests of the constructive development of industrial relations, something which might have avoided disputes, because this is an area in which disputes often do break out.
I have made a number of criticisms, but I said at the beginning of my speech that I did not deny that the Code also contained some useful and constructive points. If some of them are in the language of clichés I do not believe that to be a matter for criticism. This is an area of activity in which inevitably some general truths have been recognised over the years, and they need to be restated in such a document.
Two things are of particular value if they are implemented. First is the emphasis in the Code that management at top level should give as much attention to industrial relations as to other aspects of company affairs. That needs to be said loud and clear and it is a doctrine that must operate in industry if we are to solve the problems there. Top management should give more attention to industrial relations than to the other aspects, because the most important asset of any firm is the human capital it has and the welfare and development of that human capital in the working situation. There are far too many chairmen of big companies who will tell you from across their desks what they do about their sales policy or the financial structure of their companies, but if they are asked about their joint consultation policies they press a button and someone several grades down the management structure comes in to explain it.
The document says some good things about the rôle of shop stewards. These things overlap with what the T.U.C. has said in its document, indeed parts have been lifted direct from the document. The paragraph at the end saying that no disciplinary action should be taken against a shop steward before a full-time trade union official has been consulted has been lifted direct from the document, and that is most welcome.
I am bound to return to the incompatibility of the Code with the Industrial

485
Relations Act. If there are good parts of the Code, and there are, then the prospects of their being implemented are in inverse ratio to the prospect of the Industrial Relations Act being implemented. A considerable question mark hangs over the whole industrial relations scene—whether the Act will be widely used, whether in its practical effects on the work place it will be an event or a nonevent. This is something that we will have to discover. I hope that sensible employers will ignore it. I have had conversations with some people in management who have told me that they will ignore it and carry on as though it were not there.
I was fascinated to hear the Under-Secretary, winding up the debate on Monday, saying that he thought that resort to the procedures of the Act would be sparing. It seemed a curious statement to make about the major item in the legislative programme last Session. My fear is that whereas a lot of the more rational employers will not implement the Act quite a lot of the sillier ones will. I am not afraid of the employer with good industrial relations but of the employer with bad industrial relations already who will make his industrial relations worse by having recourse to the Act—the pompous little man who wants to tell them in the local Conservative Club how he stood up to the unions and who is prepared to see his position worsened by doing so.
If the Act is not widely used it will still have done a lot of harm. It has done harm in the sense that opportunity has been lost over the last 18 months to get on with the constructive job of implementing the Donovan Report and carrying through the long-overdue reforms, from employer, unions and Government alike, which will improve industrial relations. If the Act is used extensively much greater harm will follow. If the Secretary of State takes his Code of Practice seriously and if he wants industrial relations to develop along the lines of some of the worthy objectives he has put to the House, then his only hope is to back-pedal on the Act and encourage employers to back-pedal on it; to do all that he can to see that it remains in cold storage until it is repealed by the next Labour Government.
5.19 p.m.
Mr. John Page: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this stage because I have an urgent appointment in a television studio with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) as I have told you and I should not like to be accused of discourtesy if I leave soon after I conclude my speech. I begin with two welcomes, first to the new format of the new Code of Practice as presented and secondly a welcome to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). I remember him so well on many Friday mornings discussing these topics and, although he is bound to say something sour at the beginning of his speech and something angry at the end of it, I am sure that there will always he a large number of constructive points in the middle which we on this side appreciate. We always listen to the right hon. Gentleman with real interest knowing of his knowledge on this subject.
Mr. Prentice: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that we are angry because we want to be constructive and we cannot be with this Government in office?
Mr. Page: There is no doubt that this Code of Practice has been the result of extensive consultation since the earlier Consultative Document was introduced. I should like to congratulate the Government on the way they are producing these consultative documents, having genuine consultation and then producing a refined and workable response in the end. I should like to give personal acknowledgment to the consultation, because in my speech on 18th October last I made eight suggestions, and I am happy to say, though it may not do much good to the reputation of the Code of Practice on the other side of the House, that seven and a half of them have been adopted and incorporated in the new Code of Practice—and, I may add in answer to the hon. Member opposite, they were not planted, they were home grown. It is obviously a matter of sorrow that the T.U.C. did not genuinely consult. Having seen the T.U.C. leaflet, I think there is no doubt that the usual channels were still at work.
I should like to make a few specific remarks, a couple of criticisms, about the

487
Code itself. First of all, in the Introduction we have it—and this is where the right hon. Gentleman's speech really does ring true—that the first theme underlying the Code is
"the vital rôle of collective bargaining"
and, distinct from the right hon. Gentleman, I believe that this Code, if followed, will take us a long way along the road to better collective bargaining. The Code stresses as the second of its main themes
"the importance of good human relations"
and I believe that if this Code were followed in general by those engaged in industry as a whole many of the troubles and difficulties which now beset industry would disappear. The criticism made of the previous draft was that it was, perhaps, paternalistic. There has been a change in the draft, and there is much more stress on joint responsibility than there was before.
Next I should like to deal with paragraphs 1 and 10. These are the two first paragraphs under the headings of "Management" and "Trade Unions" respectively. Here one is relieved to see that it says under "Management":
"The principal aim of management is to conduct the business of the undertaking successfully."
No undertaking is any good to industrial relations unless it is a success. Paragraph 10, under the heading "Trade Unions" says:
"The principal aim of trade unions is to promote their members' interests".
Absolutely right. It goes on:
"They can do this only if the undertakings in which their members are employed prosper."
Again, absolute good sense.
It was good to hear my right hon. Friend in his speech saying that he realises that this Code has to be applied to large firms and small firms so that there will have to be flexibility; but, nevertheless, the principles can be applied to large and small firms alike.
Then we come to another strange remark by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, North when he was criticising paragraphs 4 and 5 saying that the Code has been watered down from the original draft as it related to the employers' duty to encourage people to join registered trade unions.
488
I really cannot see how that can be so when paragraph 4 says:
"Where trade unions are recognised for negotiating purposes management should … make clear to employees that it welcomes their membership of an appropriate recognised union …"
Again, the following paragraph 5 speaks of effective consultation and communication where trade unions are not recognised.
This is my criticism. It is noticeable that there is no mention whatever in the Code of the contra right of individuals not to join trade unions. I hope that this does not mean that the Government are slipping back from what was a basic principle of the Act.
Mr. Swain: It is in the Act.
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman says that this is in the Act. I agree that it is in the Act, but there are things here which do not tie up with the Act—just as there are a few things called rice pudding which do not have all the rice in. Some of the rice, referring to the non-necessity of joining a trade union, seems to have been left out of this pudding. I am very fond of rice pudding, so I speak with some authority on this subject.
Now we turn to paragraphs 41, 42 and 43, and again I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on taking up a point I made, and which, obviously, was made by many other representations, that fringe benefits, sick pay schemes and pension schemes, should be considered in the whole package of pay and labour costs.
I should like to put a question to my hon. Friend who is to wind up the debate, and it is on the matter of disclosure and the footnote on page 22 of the Code of Practice. Could my hon. Friend tell us how the new disclosure proposals will actually be presented to the House and to the country? Will there be another debate? Will they be issued by being laid on the Table or in the Library? How shall we actually receive the information about disclosure? From my own point of view I would reiterate what I said in the previous debate, that it would be muddling to include too much detail about disclosure in this simple document. I see no reason why it should not be treated altogether separately as an

489
appendix, because it does not apply, except in specific circumstances, to a very large number of those engaged in industry.
Finally, I believe that this Code of Practice we have before us today is unamendable, but I should like to put to my hon. Friend a specific matter which I believe is amendable. I notice that on the cover it is said that the price of this document from the Stationery Office is 15p. Shortened versions of the Industrial Relations Act, in their various forms, are provided free from my hon. Friend's Department, and I am surprised that this document has got to be paid for. I would suggest that, if there is some money left in the printing fund, further copies of the shortened versions of the Act should be left and a large number of the copies of the Code of Practice should be provided free. I do not think there is any need for them to be quite so glossy as this edition, if it is expensive, but let them be freely available, and let us hope that every new recruit joining a business, and taking on his first job, will get a copy of this document and be given an opportunity of studying it.
Mr. Swain: Send it to the miners.
Mr. Page: If it were free, I should be happy to send a large bundle to the miners. I believe that this document can be most useful in improving industrial relations and human relations, and I hope that it will be read and inwardly digested by a large number of people.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Walter Johnson: I join in the general consensus of satisfaction with the revised Code. It is written in better and more precise English than was the first draft, it will at least be intelligible to those for whom it is intended and, if it is understood and taken to heart by many employers, some advantage will be gained from it. I am glad, as was the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), that the phraseology is less paternalistic than it was in the consultative draft, about which there was a touch of Dale Carnegie—it might have been sub-titled, "How to Win your Employees' Friendship and Keep them Subservient".
The trade union movement has declined to indulge in consultations with
490
the Government upon the Code for the simple reason that it is part and parcel of the Industrial Relations Act upon which the Government were not prepared to enter into meaningful consultations with the trade union movement. We must return to that, because that is where it first started—no proper consultation with the T.U.C. before the Bill was presented to the House. Had there been such consultation we should now be in a much happier position. For one thing, we should not be having to record more days lost in industrial disputes last year than in any year since 1926. What a record the Government have!
It is a thousand pities that the Government did not discuss the draft Code of Industrial Practice with the trade union movement. Had they done so, they might have found it unnecessary to introduce the Industrial Relations Act.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will not the hon. Gentleman admit that last year the number of strikes was half the number in the year before? Is this not a good indication that strikes occur in a very few industries and that the problems overall are being reduced?
Mr. Johnson: That is not a very good intervention. The record of the Government in industrial relations is absolutely deplorable, and it is getting worse all the time.
The National Federation of Professional Workers, of which I am the Honorary National Treasurer, made a detailed study of the draft Code, particularly of those aspects of interest to the white-collar worker. There are 1·1 million white-collar workers affiliated to the N.F.P.W. but, like the T.U.C., the N.F.P.W. did not enter into consultation with the Department on the Code for the reason I have explained.
There was one issue upon which some of the unions felt very strongly and about which they sent a letter of protest to the Secretary of State. The earlier draft, in paragraph 17A, laid down that an employee who belonged to a profession with a recognised code of conduct had an obligation to comply with it and should not be compelled to act contrary to it. The Federation pointed out that a salaried professional employee did not have the same relationship with his employer as a

491
person in the same profession in private practice had with his client. His salary was determined either directly or indirectly by the collective negotiating machinery available in the industry, and he had the same need of protection by his trade union as other employees. This meant that the trade union movement could not allow him to be encouraged or permitted to evade responsibilities to his fellow employees and their union organisation.
I am happy to say that paragraph 22 of the new Code accepts that the professional employee who belongs to a trade union should respect the obligations which he has voluntarily taken on by joining the union, and that paragraphs 21 to 23 put the position of professional employees in the context which we in the National Federation thought oppropriate:
Paragraph 2 states:
"Managers at the highest level should give, and show that they give, just as much attention to industrial relations as to such functions as finance, marketing, production or administration."
I entirely agree with that approach. For far too long industrial relations have been the "poor relations" in industry and have not received the attention they deserve. Organisations should make every effort to ensure that the right people are appointed to deal with industrial relations.
Paragraph 7 states:
"All managers should receive training in the industrial relations implications of their jobs."
This is absolutely essential, and I am surprised that the Department has not considered setting up a training section to implement this part of the Code. In years gone by the Ministry of Labour ran training within industry courses for supervisors. These were valuable courses which taught the art of supervision and getting the best out of the people being supervised. Such courses are necessary also at the top level of management. Rather than haphazardly suggesting training for top managerial staff, the Department should set up a systematic form of training for managers.
I know that Government spokesmen will express the hope that employers will comply with the intention of giving more training. But, as with so many useful
492
proposals within the Code, we are left with a statement that the employer "should" do this, that or the other, with no question of him being under an obligation to do so. We need something with more teeth.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: At the beginning of his speech the hon. Gentleman objected to the Code because it was related to the Industrial Relations Act. He is now complaining that the Code is not mandatory. Because the Code is related to the Act there is in certain situations a relationship between the disciplines of the Act and the Code, so I do not know what he is complaining about.
Mr. Johnson: I am complaining, as I have been from the word "go", that had the trade union movement had the opportunity of discussing the Code 15 months ago there need not have been the terrible upheaval of the Bill going through the House and its effect upon industry, and we should have had a much better atmosphere generally in industry. I do not consider—and nor does the trade union movement—that the Industrial Relations Act is relevant to the present situation.
I have referred to matters in which the revised Code is an improvement on the previous draft. I ask the Secretary of State to give further consideration to the following points. Paragraph 77 in reference to bargaining units points out the need to take into account the distinct interest of employees who form a minority group and to balance these against the need to avoid unduly small bargaining units. That is not in itself an unreasonable caveat, but why not let it rest at that? Why is there still the quite unecessary definition of the words "minority group" by the addition in parenthesis of the words "including professional employees". This smacks of an open invitation to professional employees to opt out of the bargaining unit for their place of employment and, by implication, to opt out of any bona fide union in favour of some sort of staff association or nothing at all. It may not be the intention of the Secretary of State that the phrase should be used in that way, but that is how it is going to be interpreted. I suggest to him that it would be worth while, and would not detract

493
at all from the real sense of this paragraph, to delete those three offending and unnecessary words.
May I make a further suggestion on the section dealing with the recognition of trade unions. I am aware that it is difficult to define in statutory terms what is or is not a bona fide trade union, but may I put forward some suggestions which have been approved by the non-manual workers' section of the T.U.C. and also by the T.U.C. Congress. These suggestions are as follows—and I hope that the Minister will take them into account since they are meant to he constructive and helpful. First, that there should be an individual subscription-paying membership. Second, that subscriptions should be sufficient to create funds to enable one or more executive officers to be financially independent of management. Third, that members should be able to express opinions and cast votes without managerial influence or interference. Fourth, that the preparation and revision of rules should he the sole prerogative of the members. Fifth, that the rules should specify the procedure to be adopted, for example in the method of taking a ballot and proportion of votes required. to permit or reject affiliation to any outside body such as the T.U.C. or the N.F.P.W. Sixth, that the rules should not debar strike action other than in the case of employments where such action is debarred by statute. These are offered as constructive suggestions to the Secretary of State to be helpful to the Code, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take them into consideration.
I should also like to ask that paragraph 52 be left as it stands, because the same principle could be introduced in the section dealing with the grievance and disputes procedure. In this connection preferably I would suggest as an additional sub-paragraph in paragraph 127 that there should be introduced words to the effect that implementation of any changes introduced by management which have not been discussed with the unions concerned shall be suspended until all stages of the procedure have been completed and agreement reached or a failure to agree formally reported.
Finally, I return to paragraphs 96 to 98 on disclosure of information. I apologise for going backwards, but this was the
494
order of the earlier draft. Paragraph 96 says:
"Collective bargaining can be conducted responsibly only if management and unions have adequate information on the matters being negotiated".
The Act requires appropriate information to be made available by management, including the information supplied to shareholders in annual reports. There is here the possibility of an excuse for delaying relevant and necessary information until the annual report goes out. I suggest it would be worth while to add here a few words to make any such interpretation impossible. It is obvious that, if the information is to have any value at all, it must be timely.
So much for the Code, and I hope the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider some of the suggestions I have put forward.
Alas, even an improved Code, however useful it may prove to be in future, will for the present be regarded by the trade unions as unacceptable in so far as it is part of the machinery of the utterly objectionable Industrial Relations Act. That legislation is now in force, but I would go so far as to suggest that it is still possible for the Secretary of State to make a declaration that all action under its terms will be suspended to permit the Code of Industrial Practice to have at least a trial run without the threat of legal enforcement and sanction behind it.
A start could be made with registration, which is one of the most objectionable features of the Act. A clear statement that all bona fide trade unions would be treated alike in all respects, whether registered or not, would go a long way. An undertaking that there would be no interference with union rules except in consultation and agreement with the union concerned would be evidence of the Government applying the same sort of principles as are set out in the Code.
The Code essentially purports to be an attempt to improve industrial relations. If that really is the Government's aim, they have at hand the opportunity of achieving it at a stroke, if I may use the phrase. As Parliament adopts the Code, let it at the same time accept the necessity to repeal the Act. If the Government would repeal the Industrial Relations Act and start again with the Code, then there

495
could be a new era in industrial relations. But, because it is an adjunct to the Act, we shall go into the Lobby in support of our Amendment and against the Government.
5.48 p.m.
Mr. John H. Osborn: In contrast to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson), I believe that this Code will be a great step forward. I hope the House will be patient with me if I seek to elaborate on this theme. Whether the next step forward will be to a base on rocks and stones, or on quicksands will depend not only on industry and the trade union movement but on the House of Commons itself—including hon. Members opposite.
For about a decade responsible managers and responsible trade unionists have at various levels come together in an attempt to provide an ideal guide for those who wish to set the correct relationship between management and trade unions. Some ten years ago in an interview room in this House I was involved in an exercise of this type which included procedure agreements. From this experience I accept that this is a difficult subject and for a longer period of years than a decade there have been managers who have wished to adopt the correct structure of relationship not only within an industrial company basis, but much wider—within an industry.
The Code is involved and lengthy and it will take time for it to be understood and to percolate to every nook and cranny on the shop floor. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has implemented his promise when the Consultative Document was presented to the House on the whole question of consultation. As he stated, the draft Code has been examined by 200 organisations and my right hon. Friend has had virtually 200 submissions put to him. The two organisations with which I have been associated recognise that this consultation has taken place and they welcome the step forward in the publication of this Code of Practice. The two organisations to which I refer are the Confederation of British Industries and the Industrial Society. The latter has been very much involved in this matter.
Mr. Swain: The hon. Gentleman mentioned two societies which are not absolutely related to the trade union movement. Could he say what discussions he has had and what steps he has taken as a director of a company to get good relationships within the works over which he has control?
Mr. Osborn: Over the years, I have done much. If I were to outline my own personal involvement both in the company with which I am associated and outside it, probably I should keep the House for another half-hour.
Mr. Swain: It would be interesting, though.
Mr. Osborn: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. He and I have met in a factory in his constituency which has been involved in many of the difficulties to which reference has been made today. However, as this involves a personal issue, perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I had better discuss it outside the Chamber rather than during this debate.
I come back to my point about the shop floor. There are many young and sensitive people on the shop floor who want to know what their relationship is with their trade union rather than with their employer. This Code is to be welcomed on that account.
One of its most important features in the introduction to the Code of Practice is its emphasis on the vital rôle of collective bargaining. I accept that the phrase "collective bargaining" is part of the jargon of the trade union movement, but I should have preferred to see the word "negotiation" used instead. However, it is a phrase with which we are all familiar, and I suppose that it is necessary for it to stay.
The Code then stresses the importance of good human relations between employers and employees at every establishment based on trust and confidence. The emphasis on this is very important.
Page 2 of the Code goes on to say:
"Good industrial relations are a joint responsibility. They need the continuing cooperation of all concerned—managements, trade unions, employers' associations and individual employees …".
The reiteration of the fact that this is a joint responsibility underlines much which has been said in the Act.

497
Reference has been made to the T.U.C. booklet entitled "Good Industrial Relations". I refer only to paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5. One reads:
"The private sector is concerned with profit making … Work people, on the other hand, have different interests … It is inevitable that their interests should run counter to those of their employers."
When I read that, I thought how true this may well be. But in publishing a document of that type, it is a pity that those words should appear on the first page—as they emphasise differences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) pointed out, paragraphs 1 and 10 of the Code provide an interesting contrast.
Having said that good industrial relations require the co-operation of all concerned, I accept what paragraph 2 of the Code says, namely,
"One of management's major objectives should therefore be to develop effective industrial policies which command the confidence of employees …".
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) referred to this.
The functions of finance, marketing and administration have been overemphasised in the last decade. In my view, higher production, mechanisation and the application of technological advances within the limits of knowledge then available were relevant in the 1950's. During the 1960s, competition from outside this country as well as direct pressure from the Government following the change of Government in 1964 highlighted the expertise of finance, marketing, production and administration. I agree with hon. Members opposite that, in the latter part of the 1960's, consideration for those on the shop floor unfortunately took a turn for the worse. I believe that it is one of the causes of the difficulties that we face today. For that reason, I welcome the statement that industrial relations must be given as great a standing as the other disciplines and interests which are important in managing a business. This is a reality which managements should readily note and accept.
I turn to page 14 of the document——
Mr. Neville Sandelson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Osborn: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have an opportunity to make his own speech later. If he allows me to continue my speech, I shall achieve my objective, which is to sit down in 10 minutes. Hon. Members on both sides wish to speak.
Page 14 of the Code deals with communication and consultation. I welcome paragraphs 52 and 53, and I draw attention to paragraph 55, which refers to
"… personal contact between each manager and his immediate work group or individual employees and between managers and employee representatives."
It stresses:
"The most important method of communication is by word of mouth …".
That refers to the new responsibility—namely the operation of briefing groups—which has to be put on line management, and which for too many years has gone by default. Just now, I referred to the Industrial Society. Tomorrow at 11.15 p.m., Mr. John Garnet is to appear on television to discuss the rôle of the briefing group.
Too often during the 1950's, those who were trained as managers knew the technology of the industry with which they were concerned but had no knowledge of the way to manage or supervise those working under them. This was a failure of our management training in industry and elsewhere in the 1950's. I welcome the fact that this has now been recognised.
In the past, too often a managing director had his meeting with the shop convenor or the shop stewards and short-circuited not only his departmental managers but the charge-hands and supervisors. I welcome the emphasis placed upon the need for management to be trained to brief and to communicate with those who are responsible to them in the working group. That is a welcome addition to the Code of Practice, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept my commendation of this.
Mr. Sandelson: The hon. Gentleman has misled the House, though I am sure inadvertently. A few moments ago, he criticised the T.U.C. for the contents of the first page of its document "Good Industrial Relations"——
Mr. Osborn: Does the hon. Gentleman mean paragraph 5?
Mr. Sandelson: I do not want to mention paragraph 5. I restrict my remarks to the paragraphs referred to by the hon. Gentleman himself. The hon. Gentleman referred to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 and saw fit to criticise the T.U.C. for saying that it was inevitable that the interests of workers should run counter to those of employers. The hon. Gentleman implied that that was a most unfortunate approach on the part of the T.U.C. If he had read a little further on in the same paragraph, he might have been more helpful to the House. There, the T.U.C. points out that there are, equally, divergencies of interests between workers in industry and not just a difference of interests between workers and employers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on that.
Mr. Osborn: I think that I shall content myself with accepting the hon. Gentleman's comment. If I do anything else, I shall be drawn into a lengthy explanation. I am aware, of course, of paragraphs 2 and 3, concerned with the responsibilities of management, and I agree that I might have added a reference to paragraph 5 of the introduction to the T.U.C. document. However, that has nothing to do with what I am saying now. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) cares to make a speech on this point, I shall be pleased to listen to him.
I make two brief observations. The first relates to paragraphs 66 and 67 of the Code, which deal with the need for consultation between management and employees or their representatives about operational and other day-to-day matters, and the statement in paragraph 67 that:
"The arrangements should not be used to by-pass or discourage trade unions."
Although I spoke about briefing groups, the trade unions must be allowed to operate under the Code of Practice and to provide the feed-back as an essential part of the machinery of consultation.
I will move on to the next point, the challenge to management, which comes under "Management Responsibilities". I refer particularly to paragraph 4(iii),
"make clear to employees that it welcomes their membership of an appropriate recognised union".
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North expressed the hope that management would take on the responsibility of encouraging new employees to join a
500
trade union. The wording very nearly goes that far. That is a concept which I endorse. I particularly hope that, as many trade unions are not registering, management will continue the responsibility that it has accepted in the past of encouraging new employees to join a trade union. I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite would accept that.
I turn now to page 6, paragraph 13(iii), which refers to the responsibility of trade unions to
"encourage their members to attend union meetings".
If management is to encourage new employees to join trade unions, I would hope that the trade unions themselves, and others, would encourage their members to attend meetings. I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept that at the moment to too great an extent there is an apathetic and unwilling membership of the trade union movement. This must be avoided at all costs. There have been one or two——
Mr. Loughlin: I accept that the hon. Gentleman has great concern about the trade unions. Does he not think it a little presumptuous to try to tell the trade unions what they should do about encouraging their members to attend meetings, which they already do, without himself perhaps encouraging some employers to attend meetings of their associations?
Mr. Osborn: Let us express the hope that employers will attend their association meetings, as well as trade union members attend their own.
Mr. Loughlin: They do not.
Mr. Osborn: I know many trade unionists and particularly branch secretaries—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does, too—who genuinely complain that only too frequently their union meetings are not well attended.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was not for me to do this. I hope that he will agree that to ask managers to encourage new employees to join a trade union, it is reasonable to add the rider and to take part in the activities of the trade union—but I am welcoming the fact that this is in the Code.
I welcome the fact that on page 24, paragraph 108, there is reference to

501
facilities for conducting elections, and the encouragement of voting in them. It is important that the trade unions should grasp the nettle and conduct themselves in a manner which will appeal to the majority of their members.
I come to the point which I had intended to raise at the beginning of my contribution: that there are many on the shop floor—I have met such people on many occasions, but usually informally away from the factory—who are and have been apprehensive about their relationships with their own unions. Many workers are forced, because of the power of the union and perhaps collective pressures, to agree to take action which they would prefer not to do. If trade unions are properly organised, if shop stewards are properly elected and if there are proper procedures, the trade union movement as an activity will surely attract new members without the compulsion of the closed shop, and on merit. The Code of Practice will go a long way to achieving this end.
There will be the problem of the closed shop and the fact that a number of unions have not registered. At this time, more than any other, it is desirable that employees coming into an industry should of their own volition want to join a trade union. The hon. Gentleman laughs. Surely he is not laughing at this point of view because it is expressed on this side of the House, which is reiterated by many in management, and which the Code itself rightly stresses.
Mr. Sandelson rose——
Mr. Osborn: Therefore, I welcome the Code of Practice and will support it in the Lobby tonight.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Lee: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) made a reasoned speech until lie began talking about members of trade unions being apprehensive about the activities of their unions. I have been closely associated with the trade union movement both in an official capacity and as an ordinary member. Frankly, I have never come across trade unionists who are apprehensive about the activities of their unions. I recall many occasions on which my members have told me that they were apprehensive because I was not
502
active enough. I suggest that for the hon. Gentleman to peddle that kind of line in a serious debate on these issues brings it down to a pretty low level.
Strangely enough, some of the problems which we have had with employers have been their unwillingness to join their appropriate unions. Indeed, I have been a recruiting sergeant for the Engineering Employers' Federation on more occasions than I have had reason to chastise my own members for lack of activity inside the trade union movement itself.
I turn to what the Secretary of State said at the beginning of the debate. He said—I hope I am being fair in my paraphrase—that we have a very old industrial system, that industrial relations go back a long way, that they need a shakeout, if that is the right expression, and that the Government have done just that. He then went on to tell us that the Government were pledged to return to free collective bargaining and to get rid of the statutory incomes policy and that they have also done those two things.
I see some of my hon. Friends from the National Union of Mineworkers here today. What is their trouble about? If the Government have returned to a system of free collective bargaining, is it a coincidence that we find that, whether they be post office workers, coalminers, or others in the public sector, they cannot hope to get anything above 7·9 per cent. or whatever it is? The right hon. Gentleman may be able to get away with that kind of statement in the country, but to ask hon. Members to believe that the Government have returned to a system of free collective bargaining, which has no application whatever throughout the whole of the public sector, is sheer hypocrisy.
I am not here to argue that we should be in a "free collective bargaining system". Many hon. Members—probably on both sides of the House—would no doubt agree that collective bargaining did not suddenly reach its apex some years ago and that it could not possibly develop further from the point when Whitley or some other institution was used. I have always taken the view that collective bargaining, like other industrial processes, is in the course of evolution. It would be wrong for any of us simply to stand pat on a given formula

503
for collective bargaining and to say at that stage that there was no point in trying to find anything better.
We tried to do that with our incomes policy. The Government have got themselves into the hopeless jam in which we see them because of the hypocrisy about which I have complained. At least we got the consent of this House to what we were doing. Behind the House's back the Government have instituted a pernicious system based on the victimisation of certain workers who cannot get away from their clutches, while not exercising any kind of jurisdiction over people in the private sector. Long before the Government came to power the now Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment himself told the country that they supported free collective bargaining, but they always wailed at the results of free collective bargaining when they thought that they were higher than they should be.
The reason for our opposition to the Code is to be found in the Government's hypocrisy in these matters, and in the fact that 95 per cent. of the provisions of the Code are there because the Government, of their charity, are pleased to give us what we won for ourselves donkeys years ago. We do not like the idea of the Government telling us what they are conceding to us. If I had the time, I could go through this document paragraph by paragraph and tell the House of the fights that I have had over the years to get the things which the Government now say they are giving us. No Government can take these things away from us. The Government ought not to parade in this kind of glossy document the fact that, according to them, they are conceding things which we do not wish them to concede to us, because we won them for ourselves many years ago.
We do not object to the principle of some of the things in the Code. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said, it is the Code's connection with the Industrial Relations Act that we deplore. I do not know why there should be any dubiety about that connection because the Code says on page 3:
504
"The Code complements the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act."
It cannot be put much more clearly than that. We cannot possibly accept any provisions which are based upon that Act, particularly as we have won all these rights for ourselves. In statutory form we are being told that these rights are being conceded to us by a medium which we detest, namely, the Industrial Relations Act which nobody would dream of accepting. In those circumstances the Government cannot expect the Opposition to agree with the Code.
When the Secretary of State was dealing with paragraph 52 of the Code I interrupted him to say that the status quo arrangement was contained in the York Memorandum of 1922 which was forced upon the engineering unions when they had been beaten to their knees in a lockout which had left them without any funds to defend themselves. The York Memorandum meant that trade unions were expected—indeed, almost compelled—to honour agreements which were made, but if employers decided that practices and agreements which had existed for many years should be changed they could change them, and if the unions objected they had to go through the procedures laid down in the constitution of the York Memorandum.
Mr. Stanley Orme: That could take nine months.
Mr. Lee: It could take even longer than that.
If the Government intended doing the things which they said they would do, we were entitled to expect that kind of infamous conduct by the employers to be prohibited, but the Code does nothing of the sort. It says in paragraph 91:
"Procedural provisions should lay down the constitution of any joint negotiating body or specify the parties to the procedure. They should also cover …
(ii) arrangements for negotiating terms and conditions of employment and the circumstances in which either party can give notice of their wish to renegotiate them …".
That provision is not worth the paper it is written on. As long as the status quo situation obtains, that provision is sheer, unadulterated nonsense, and I challenge the Minister to try to square the two things.

505
It is an affront to expect us to accept what the right hon. Gentleman says—that he is sorry, but the status quo arrangement has been in existence in engineering for so long that nothing can be done about it. I know that the C.B.I. would not like it to be altered, and certainly the Engineering Employers' Federation would be apoplectic if it were changed, yet the Government insert in paragraph 91 the words which I have quoted.
My right hon. Friend said that in many factories where proper negotiating arrangements existed both employers and the trade unions would ignore the provisions of the Act and of this Code. Having told the House about the York Memorandum, perhaps I may now tell the House of my experience at a factory employing 30,000 people, where I had the honour to be the chairman of the works committee. I did not know it then, but I realise now that we had the best internal negotiating arrangements anywhere in the world.
One reason for that state of affairs was that the employers agreed that they would never attempt to enforce the provisions of the York Memorandum. In other words, the status quo arrangement never applied and it was possible for us to get round a table and negotiate our arrangements in the knowledge that they would be honoured by both sides, that there would never be an attempt by the employers to change those conditions behind our backs and tell us to go to York if we did not like what they had done. The shop stewards at that factory felt confident about arrangements made with the local management. My experience is that good working conditions are to be found in factories where there has been established that kind of confidence between the two sides at the factory.
We reached the stage—and I should like to see this happen throughout British industry, though some of my hon. Friends may be shocked to hear me say so—where we would not even allow a full-time union official in the factory. We took the view that the further the dispute was taken from the place where it began, the less chance there was of a satisfactory settlement. I shall not tell the House what happened when full-time officials did come in. I merely say that they were not invited
506
to return. I suggest to the Government that they must not try to bring in the kind of nonsense that is in this Code.
One cannot do anything with the Industrial Relations Act which is behind the Code. If that Act is going to do the things that we heard about last year, what is happening in the miners' strike? There has been mention already of the number of days lost in disputes since this Government came in. Large parts of that Act are now in effect. What has gone wrong? Why is it not waving the magic wand which we were led to expect? The truth is that at best it is ineffective and at worst it is a positive menace.
I am not opposed to arbitration as a last resort, but there is a great danger that, if the use of arbitration gets out of perspective, the whole bargaining strategy of both sides in a discussion will be conducted simply with an eye to the arbitration. This emphasises the need for a proper industrial relationship. I want to see it modernised. I had to undertake some of the horse-dealing nonsense to achieve my objects, but I was ashamed of it. I have said before that I might have a dispute over a 50-ton casting and another over an instrument that could not be seen with the naked eye. I would bargain the one off against the other to get a settlement on both. What kind of science is that? Some of us were told to bow down to the sacred cow of free collective bargaining, but there is a lot to be done in changing it.
I do not want to go too far in what I have said about incomes policy. I have always complained that, because we introduced an incomes policy at the time of an economic crisis, it became the creature of the crisis. Lord George-Brown had to introduce it because of the crisis. I can think of nothing worse. That is nothing to do with incomes policy. Incomes policy is a way of getting a fair and proper distribution of what industry can pay.
I think of the miner, of the terribly low rates that he is getting. The criteria of an incomes policy should be things like danger, dirt and responsibility. Under those conditions, the miner would be the top of the league again. I have heard Lawrence Daly say that he was in favour of incomes policy. Will Paynter and the leaders of the miners have understood this problem.

507
It is a pity that the departure of an incomes policy, which will come before any Government can exercise planning in this country, should have had to take place against a background which inevitably meant that it was a restrictive instrument. I hope that the advice which some of us have given will be heard in industry. We hope that the Act itself and the Code which springs from it will be ignored.
We believe that we have sufficient experience in the trade union movement and of employers' associations to perfect the institutions through which we negotiate so that they will accept the need for vast improvements in the workshops, wherever they do not have satisfactory negotiating arrangements, and that, through that method, they can reach a far better understanding in industry.
Hon. Members opposite are always talking about losses of days in industry. We used to hear this when we were sitting on that side of the House. It almost seems that they think that workmen enjoy forfeiting their wages by having to strike for decent conditions. I have never met anyone in that category. My next door neighbour is a single man in the pits. He has not drawn a halfpenny in the last month. Do hon. Members think that he is enjoying it? They are living in a false world which does not exist and can be cured only by getting the confidence of the people in industry, by giving a greater degree of confidence and honour to shop stewards, instead of their being vilified in the Tory Press. I have lived with them and worked with them and I cannot think of a more responsible body of people, as a body, anywhere in Britain than the shop stewards I know.
Surely, for this kind of thing, which is the concomitant in this field of the I.R.A., the Industrial Relations Act is the wrong way. It has put us back 20 years. I hope that people realise that only by getting back to a Labour Government, who can deal fairly and squarely with these issues, can we get rid of these problems.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. Peter Trew: I have listened with great interest to the right hon. Members for Newton (Mr. Lee), who gave us examples from his wide experi-
508
ence of industrial relations which had worked well with the willing consent of both sides. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Industrial Relations Act or in this Code of Practice which should prevent such good arrangements in future. But, as well as good examples, there are many bad ones. It is my belief, although the right hon. Gentleman clearly disagrees with me, that the Act and the Code will, as the years go by, provide a framework in which industrial relations can get progressively better.
I want to say something about the paragraphs in the Code which apply to professional employees. I must declare an interest, because I am one of the 300,000 chartered engineers whose working lives may at some time be affected by these paragraphs.
The Government have already gone a long way towards meeting the special needs of professional employees, not only in the agency shop and bargaining unit provisions of the Act itself but also in the Code of Practice, in paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 77. I can fully understand the Government's reluctance to give too much in the way of privileges to any particular category of employee. I would not claim that professional employees have any monopoly of a sense of obligation, loyalty or regard for the public interest. These sentiments are widespread throughout industry, perhaps more so in British industry than in that of any other country.
But there is one respect, I believe, in which professional employees are in a special position. They owe their professional status, and therefore in many cases their livelihood, to adherence to a code of professional practice. To contravene that code is to run the risk of forfeiting their professional status and quite likely their livelihood.
This code of professional practice, depending on the institution, often has the force behind it of an Order in Council, and, implicitly and often explicitly, it refers to the public interest. I have here, for instance, the rules for professional conduct of my own institution, the Institution of Civil Engineers. Paragraph I says:
"A member, in his responsibility to his employer and to the profession, shall have regard to the public interest."

509
The Council of Engineering Institutions, which is the umbrella institution for all the chartered engineering institutions, has adopted virtually the same wording.
The Industrial Relations Code of Practice rightly specifies examples of actions which are contrary to the public interest. Paragraph 22 defines them as actions which would endanger

"(i) public health or safety;

(ii) the health of an individual needing medical or other treatment;

(iii)the well-being of an individual needing care through the personal social services."

It is right that all these actions should be specified.
However, there is another class of action to which the Code should have referred, namely action endangering valuable property. I am thinking of machinery, equipment or installations which might suffer permanent and very expensive damage during a prolonged dispute through failure to maintain them or to take certain action. It is a defect that paragraph 22 makes no reference to action which might endanger valuable property.
Another respect in which the Code is defective is that it departs from paragraph A17 of the Consultative Document, which makes specific reference to the duties of the employer—
"An employee who belongs to a profession with a recognised code of conduct has an obligation to comply with that code. He should not be called upon by his employer or by any trade union of which he is a member to take any action which would be contrary to it."
The Code has omitted that reference to the duty of the employer. It is a pity, because there are circumstances in which a professional employee may be under pressure from an employer to take action which is contrary to his professional code of conduct. A great deal of engineering design goes into trying to balance economy with safety and health requirements. I think, for instance, of the factor of safety in a building, where for reasons of cost a designer might be under pressure to cut the safety factor. On a construction site an engineer might be under pressure to skimp on safety arrangements because of pressure on either cost or time.
One would hope that any professional employee in such a situation would have sufficient integrity of character to resist
510
such pressure, even to the point of courting dismissal. One would expect him to do that, but one would also expect him to have the moral support of the Code.
Section 2(2) of the Industrial Relations Act provides:
"In preparing that code the Secretary of State shall have regard to—
(a) the need for those who manage undertakings to accept primary responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations …".
It is inconsistent with that subsection to omit from the Code any reference to the duty of employers. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell us why this reference to the employer was omitted.
I believe that the Government have done a great deal to recognise the special problems and position of professional employees. It is now up to them within the framework provided by the Government to organise themselves and to look after their own interests. I hope that my right hon. Friend, when in due course he takes another look at the Code in terms of Section 2(3), will bear these two important points closely in mind.
6.34 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn boson: The Secretary of State for Employment congratulated himself on the fact that there was a sharpening up, as it were, of the language of the now published Code as opposed to the Consultative Document. To a certain degree the right hon. Gentleman was right; there has been sharpening up to a degree, although the Code is still a string of truisms. In paragraph 96 this distilled wisdom appears:
"Collective bargaining can be conducted responsibly only if management and unions have adequate information on the matters being negotiated."
Such language is unexceptional, but it begs the question as to what rôle the Code is to fulfil in our industrial relations.
I have expressed the view many times that, whereas the Act and the Code can, and should be allowed to, make a contribution to improving industrial relations, neither of them gets down to the root of the trouble in industry. Although the power of employees' representatives in negotiations has now firmly passed to the shop floor and has probably been there a good time, there is in most cases in the industrial set-up no effective constitution-making machinery at shop floor level.

511
In fact, we are still in danger of anarchy in shop floor negotiations, despite the passing of the Industrial Relations Act. It is the stated objective of a large number of shop stewards, for a variety of reasons, to fight against the establishment of formal contractual arrangements for effective consultation and negotiation at plant level.
As we review the Code today, I want to reiterate the view of my party that there is a desperate need in British industry for a works constitution law similar to that which exists in Germany. The key point in our industrial relations today is the need for the legislature to appreciate what is its function in industrial relations. The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) referred to the Labour Party's essay into industrial relations. That came at a time of financial crisis. It was tied up with a prices and incomes policy which had the effect of petrifying wages. Only a percentage increase was allowed, so there was no hope of redressing inequitable relationships. The right hon. Gentleman said that the interference was at the wrong time, and I think that he implied that it was made in the wrong way.
Mr. Frederick Lee: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that during the whole course of that experiment there was no period in which incomes were not rising faster than prices?
Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Gentleman fails to see the point. He referred to the miners. If they were already on a low rate and were allowed only a 4 per cent. increase, they could never readjust their scale in relation to earnings in other industries under such a policy.
That is the wrong way for a Government or a legislature to intervene. The great task of the legislature is to establish constitutionally based works councils representative of all employees and with clearly established rights and obligations. Equally necessary would be the constitutional requirement for effective reporting back by employees' representatives to their members.
It is not a code which is necessary to achieve this. This Code is unexceptionable. How anybody can vote against the Code passes my understanding, because it is a matter of common sense. There
512
is hardly anything one can disagree with in the Code.
The real question is—how effective will it be? Will it make a significant contribution to good industrial relations? The real criticism of the Code is its obvious inadequacy. It is full of pious truisms which will not have very much effect on good industrial relations. The Code will no doubt be referred to from time to time. The Act provides that an industrial court shall be aware of the requirements of the Code.
I should have liked the legislature to go much further, because we need to create a much more acceptable atmosphere in industrial relations. That is obviously a matter to which all parties will subscribe. To a very limited degree a code makes a contribution to this. I cannot imagine that there will be many people on either side of industry who, on reading the Code, will say, "I disagree with that", or "I disagree with this"; but that is a far cry from saying that they will accept, not the pious sentiment which is behind the statement, but the necessary constitutional machinery to put that pious resolution into effect, and that is what is missing now.
Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. and learned Gentleman heard the opening speech made from the Opposition Front Bench by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) in which he complained that because the Code was tied to the Act, there would be pressure for its fulfilment, and he declared that his hon. Friends objected to its being tied in that way. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman ignoring that argument entirely and saying that it has no basis?
Mr. Hooson: I was not impressed by the argument when I heard it. I have always taken the view that the Labour Party made far too much fuss about the Industrial Relations Act, anyway.
Mr. Swain: The hon. and learned Gentleman operates in a closed shop.
Mr. Hooson: I do not operate in any shop.
I took the view all along that the Industrial Relations Act would make only a modest contribution to industrial relations. I now take the view that the Code will make an even more modest contribution than the Act. All the fuss made

513
about this by the Labour Party does not bear examination.
It is right to emphasise the rôle of management, but it is odd to find it stated in paragraph 1 of the Code
"The principal aim of management is to conduct the business of the undertaking successfully."
What else could it have as its aim? It is astounding that it should have been thought necessary to state such matters in a code of this kind.
People will in theory subscribe to what is in the Code, but in practice they are likely to do nothing about it because we do not have the correctly constituted machinery at the works level to do it. It is clear that power has moved in the trade union movement to the shop stewards. Whereas the strategy behind the Act and, to a degree, behind the Code, is, as it were, designed to reduce the power of the shop stewards, we should instead be recognising the power which they have and be providing means to enable them to exercise it constitutionally and responsibly.
The Government are right to emphasise the key rôle of management in industrial relations, and what is said in the key section of the Code about consultation and communications is vitally important, though the Government have not provided the means of achieving proper consultation and communication.
One of the greatest ills in British industry today lies in the fact that people do not feel that they belong or have a right to participate. Far too much power is exercised by shop stewards, many of whom are not responsible to those who look to them for representation. In some instances—in far too many but not in all—the shop steward has gained that office because he is keen to do the job. On the other hand, he may have a political motivation. But the responsibility of the shop steward to the people on the shop floor is often not as good as it should be.
Mr. Sillars: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman, being a lawyer, give evidence to support that theory?
Mr. Hooson: Certainly. Over the years I have appeared in many cases both for and against unions. During the consultations that take place on such matters,
514
one gleans a great deal of inside information which is perhaps not repeated on political platforms.
It is clear that managements and unions are too far apart in British industry. One of the great problems today centres around this question of communication between management and employees as well as between different grades of management, a matter which invites criticism in many managerial set-ups.
Likewise, one can criticise the lack of communication between trade unions at the top and between trade union officials and shop stewards. There is a general lack of communication, and one wonders what contribution this Code will make to improving matters. It may make a modest one, but it will not begin to get to the root of the problem.
I do not want to criticise the Code line by line, but it is regrettable that the requirements for a move in the direction of eliminating the difference in conditions of service between manual and non-manual workers have been watered down in the present verision of the Code compared with the version produced in June, 1971.
We suppose that this has been done at the request of employers, who fear the expense—undoubtedly it will be expensive to implement—but the intention to implement must be clear and decisive if we are to make progress in this connection.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the relevance of legislation to the subject of industrial relations. There has been hesitation, some of it from the best motives, about introducing the law into employer-employee relationships. This was a feature of many of our earlier debates. We share this reserve, but it is clear that some legal action was necessary if industrial relations were to be improved.
The kind of legislation which is required is not primarily or only that which finds ways of punishing offenders but also that which provides a framework of law within which necessary negotiations and the resolution of points of difference can be carried out. If men are to be reasonable, they need the assured support of the law and not merely the fear of penalties for infringing it.

515
I therefore emphasise that as a contribution to the improvement of industrial relations and as a way of materially assisting men of good will on both sides of British industry to improve the prospects for the country and for those whom they represent, I find the Act and the Code inadequate.
If it is regarded as a necessary beginning, then that is as far as one can go. However, even at this late stage the Government would be wise to seek to present not a Code but legislation embodying substantial proposals for a works constitutional law in this country.
6.48 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: I have no intention of making an aggressive speech and I have one criticism of the Code to offer the Minister.
As I listened to the ritual peroration of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) predicting that a future Labour Government would repeal the Industrial Relations Act, I could not help wondering whether he had read or heard the speech made on Second Reading in another place by Lord Donovan in which the noble Lord offered his advice to the Labour Party and forecast that the Industrial Relations Act never would be repealed.
I am sure as a matter of historical fact that he was right. I doubt whether any hon. Member is able to point to any major piece of legislation—by "major" I mean any Measure above 50 to 60 Clauses—which has been repealed in toto.
Mr. Harold Walker: It is extraordinary to hear the hon. Gentleman estimate the importance of a Measure by its length. He must be aware that one of the most important pieces of legislation in this sphere was the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, while another, almost as important, was the Trade Union Act, 1871. Both were among many statutes repealed at a stroke by the Industrial Relations Act, 1971.
Mr. Woodhouse: I am pleased that I defined "major" in the terms I did, and I stick to that definition. It is inevitable that a piece of legislation of that size will contain a great many elements, how-
516
ever controversial the basic element may be, which all hon. Members wish to retain. I have often said that both sides of the House, when they are in Opposition, make a mistake when threatening to repeal major pieces of legislation. A similar mistake was made on our side in the past and it has been made by the Opposition today. If I were a gambling man, which I am not, I would offer to make a substantial bet with the right hon. Member for East Ham, North, or any hon. Member on the other side of the House, that this Act never will be repealed.
What Lord Donovan very wisely suggested was that the Labour Party should concentrate in the long term upon considering amendments to the Act with a view to its ultimate improvement. I am sure that it is open to improvement and that one day it will be amended. It would be helpful if the Opposition would accustom themselves to living with this piece of legislation, which is now on the Statute Book, and realising that it contains some merits from their point of view. I hope that they will eventually develop the same attitude—some of them have already developed it—towards the Code of Practice which we are discussing.
Under the procedures of the House, it is not open to us to amend the Code. I am glad, therefore, the Government gave us two bites at this one and undertook amendments in the light of the earlier debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a very conscientious effort to take account of the suggestions, comments and criticisms which were made in the earlier debate. He said that he was not claiming that the result was perfect.
I have a criticism of it which I hope may be taken into account in a further revision, although that obviously cannot take place tonight. My right hon. Friend has not removed from the draft Code one underlying weakness which recurs at various points in the original legislation and to which I drew attention on Second Reading. This weakness is the fallacy of supposing that trade unions and employers' organisations are essentially bodies of a similar nature between which a symmetrical relationship can be established and to which broadly similar provisions can be applied. That is not so. The fundamental difference is that

517
whereas a trade union is an organisation of individuals, an employers' organisation is an association of corporate bodies. I shall not elaborate again the wider consequences of that difference, to which I drew attention on Second Reading. I confine myself to the consequences which I see arising in the context of the present draft Code.
The assumption that trade unions and employers' organisations are essentially similar bodies can be seen most clearly by a comparison of paragraph 11 and paragraph 16 of the draft Code, and more particularly by a comparison of paragraph 14 and paragraph 17. Paragraph 14 states:
"Members of a trade union should be prepared to provide their union with the authority and resources needed to carry out its functions."
Paragraph 17 lays the same requirement on members of an employers' organisation with the addition of the word "information". I do not understand why that difference occurs in those two paragraphs, and why employers should provide their organisations with information and members of trade unions need not provide their trade union organisations with information. It is a puzzling distinction. But it is not significant in relation to my main point.
My main point lies in the word "authority". "Authority" implies a power to decide—not only a power to decide on matters about which all members of the organisation are agreed but also on matters about which some members may disagree. How is that authority to come into existence? In the case of trade unions, there is no difficulty, because the Act provides in detail for the means by which trade unions are to he enabled to speak authoritatively for their members. I mention only a few points. I know that not all hon. Members opposite will accept my interpretation of the Act and its consequences, but if necessary I am prepared to argue about it.
The Act is almost certain to ensure a substantial numerical increase in trade union membership throughout the country. It will also increase the capacity of trade unions to ensure that their members respect agreements negotiated on their behalf, and it will decrease the attractiveness to individual workers of
518
seceding from membership or refusing to join, because they will have to pay the equivalent of a subscription in any case.
Mr. Swain: The hon. Gentleman said that the Act will encourage trade union members to accept agreements negotiated on their behalf. How does he reconcile that with the fact that during the past nine months more official strikes have been called by the trade unions than during the past 12 years?
Mr. Woodhouse: I should prefer not to be seduced into an argument on that point—merely in the interests of saving time. However, there is no difficulty in answering the point. The Industrial Relations Act is not designed to remedy specific situations—with a few exceptions—that have already arisen. It is designed to change the climate of negotiation throughout industry, and it will undoubtedly take time to achieve that result.
The trade union is placed in a new position by the Act in relation to its members, but nothing of that kind is applied to employers' organisations in relation to their members. The Act is virtually silent on this relationship. Therefore, to apply virtually identical provisions in the Code to the two cases seems to be ridiculous. For example, although the Act gives trade unions in the last resort a power to expel dissident members and gives the same power to employers' organisations, whereas it is a very formidable sanction in the case of trade unions, for employers' organisations it is futile, because a member of an employers' organisation who dissents from its policies, or from agreements into which the organisation has entered on his behalf, will resign from the organisation in any case long before it can get around to expelling him. Moreover, by resigning, he will suffer nothing. He cannot even be compelled to pay the equivalent of a subscription, as can a dissident worker. He will thus become an archetypal free rider of the kind which, in the case of trade unions, the Act rightly seeks to eliminate. In these circumstances, the employer will get all the benefits with none of the responsibilities of membership of his organisation.
The upshot is bound to be that in any really controversial case—and it is only

519
in controversial cases that the Code will be significant—the situations of the trade union and of the employers' organisation will be quite different. The trade union will be in a position to deliver the goods and the employers' organisation will not. This could well lead to acrimony and legitimate complaints by trade unions that they are put at a disadvantage.
Mr. John Page: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that there should be a kind of anti-free rider payment to employers' associations or a kind of closed shop arrangement?
Mr. Woodhouse: I am not making any such suggestion. I am drawing attention to the fact that in the Code there is a disparity between the position of trade unions and the position of employers' organisations. We cannot amend the Code. My conclusion is that because of the disparity there is liable to be acrimony and a feeling on the part of the trade unions that they are put at a disadvantage, which cannot help to make the Code effective in practice.
I regret not having been present at that previous debate to make these points, but I defined on Second Reading over a year ago the principles of the points I intended to make. I very much hope that in preparing a future version of the Code my right hon. Friend will give attention to that matter and that in the long run the Act will be amended to remove the underlying fallacy of assuming that a trade union and an employers' organisation are two bodies of an identical kind.
7.2 p.m.
Mr. James Sillars: The remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) about whether the next Labour Government will repeal the Industrial Relations Act showed a lack of understanding of just how important the trade union and labour movement regard that Act as being. The Labour Party has already made a commitment to the trade union movement that one of its priorities in Government will be to repeal the Act.
Mr. Woodhouse: If I have misconstrued the feeling on the matter, it is an error I share with Lord Donovan,
520
because he made precisely the point I made when he spoke in the Second Reading debate in another place.
Mr. Sillars: Irrespective of the quality, value and worth of a person, if he lies outside the realms of the trade union and labour movement he cannot understand how our heart ticks and our mind works. I can remove Conservative Members' expectations on this. The Labour movement will elect a Labour Government, which will repeal the Act.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is a very attractive new hon. Member, and I want to help him. He should not be led astray by what some of his leaders sometimes say. They said that they would get out of the Nassau Agreement and all sorts of other important things. The hon. Gentleman should not take for granted that they will do any more than to amend the Act in a minor way.
Mr. Sillars: I am talking about what the rank-and-file members of the Labour movement are saying, and when the next Labour Government are elected that will be more important than any other statement. The Labour Party's manifesto for the next election is already being written, and on page 1 there is a reference to the repeal of the Act. No future Labour Government will be able to survive without its repeal.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is terribly naive.
Mr. Sillars: No. Very few people who are terribly naive arrive in this Chamber.
I want to refer to the speech of the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who is no longer here. I find it very difficult to debate with the representatives of the Liberal Party. It is like debating with a shadow. They never appear in the same spot twice and they are rarely here for any length of time. I envy the ability of members of the minority party to walk in and out almost with the implied right to speak in a debate. Anyone who speaks, certainly in a debate on a major issue like the one before us, should do other hon. Members the courtesy of at least staying some time before he speaks and for some time after.

521
My reading of politics over a period of time, admittedly from a biased standpoint, makes it clear that the Liberal Party's fall came with the rise of the Labour movement, which stole its industrial base. I do not think that the Liberal Party is ever likely to rise again, because the industrial workers will never follow the claptrap we heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Labour movement is not impressed with his constitutional methods of overcoming some of the problems arising from the power factors in British industry.
I shall vote against the Code, for good reasons, though there are a number of things in it with which we can all agree. For example, paragraph 51 tells us about communications:
"Communication and consultation are essential in all establishments."
No one disagrees with that, but the document is full of statements that are mere platitudes. I am reminded of a slogan printed on the factory wall by an employer I knew:
"A fair day's work for a fair day's pay."
That was a mere platitude. It begged the question of what was a fair day's wage and what was a fair day's work—and it was in one of the lowest-paid establishments in the town in which I lived. The document reminds me very much of the mental attitude that led to the printing of that slogan.
We come to the crunch of the Code, the question of whose side of the industrial fence it comes down on, when we see that it qualifies very heavily, and just as often as necessary, any invasion of managerial prerogative. The problem in industrial relations is the division of power and influence. I always make up my mind on a document or group by asking, "Whose side is this on—the side of working people seeking to expand their influence or of the employer seeking to contain the expansion of working people's aspirations?"
Paragraphs 40–46 deal with the status and security of employees—[Interruption.] Does someone want to interrupt, or am I interrupting a private conversation? Paragraph 41 says:
"Where practicable, management should provide occupational pension and sick pay schemes."
522
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) will recall our debates in the last Session when the Tory Government took away the entitlement to sickness and injury benefit for the first three days, essentially from the manual workers. The Government might have differentiated in paragraph 41 between the manual and white collar workers, because the manual workers are most affected by the removal of the three waiting days. It would have cost the Government nothing, even if they did not want to commit themselves entirely in relation to white collar workers, to fill a gap that has arisen in the financial lives of a number of manual workers. That is one of the tests. Whose side does it come down on? It comes down on the side of the empoyers.
Paragraph 42, which deals with the position of staff workers as opposed to production workers, is hedged around to such an extent that it is hardly worth reading. No one will find that it gives any point of reference in argument with management. The most important clue to the Government's thinking or lack of it lies in paragraph 44, which begins with the statement:
"Responsibility for deciding the size of the work force rests with management."
One wonders whether the Government are aware of the realities of life in 1972. Do not they realise that it is no longer acceptable to working people to give management that prerogative? We are now living in the time of the U.C.S., Plessey and Fisher-Bendix sit-ins and work-ins. Working people are no longer prepared to give managements the right to fire them.
Since the 1930s, there has been tremendous progress in the thinking among the working class of our country. In the 1930s, my father accepted as perfectly natural the fact that he could collect his pay packet from the L.M.S. Railway on Friday and find in it a note telling him to report to Cricklewood in London on the following Monday. If he did not, he lost his job. But he thought that a natural process in the life of the working class. There has been a lot of education since then inside the trade union and Labour movement, and pressures on working people have increased over the years. They have tasted a degree of affluence which they did not have before.

523
They have demands which they did not have before. They have come to the point of insisting that they have a right to work because they realise that, without the basic right to work, they have no rights worth speaking of. There is no point in arguing that they have the right to free education, for example, if the head of the house and the breadwinner does not have the right to work in order to supplement at home the benefit which the child is getting at school.
Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman implies that there is a deep rift between all management and employers and the working people. Is not he prepared to admit that many people who are senior managers today, or are owners of companies and big employers, were working people themselves? There is not this big gap. I am most concerned at the tone of his speech.
Mr. Sillars: I have heard that one before. The next one is that all investment is on behalf of widows and orphans. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's thinking. My experience does not tell me that what he says is so. Certainly, many of the managers gained some experience on the workshop floor but with the pre-knowledge that they were destined for the highest positions in the company.
Sir John Rodgers rose——
Mr. Sillars: I do not want to give way again, although I am usually ready to do so. I want to continue, because other hon. Members are waiting to speak and I do not want to be too controversial this evening. The Government must understand that we are demanding the right to work, that we are not departing from it and that we strongly object to paragraph 44.
The Introduction to the Code contains the main themes underlying it, as the Government say. It refers to workers wanting freedom and security. It is difficult to get freedom and security in days of 1 million unemployed. The introduction refers to
"… the vital role of collective bargaining carried out in a reasonable and constructive manner …"
and also to
"… the importance of good human relations …".
524
The Government must understand that they do not live in a vacuum any more than industry does. Industry lives in the climate created by the Government. At the moment, there is a national coal strike, which I know something about, since I come from a coal-mining constituency. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) is intimately involved in it as a miners' M.P.
It is ironic that this Code must have been at the printers when the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers finally clashed on the miners' pay deal. The printer must have been printing the words
"… reasonable and constructive manner …"
at a time when Mr. Derek Ezra was threatening the miners that he would withdraw the board's offer in its entirety if they went on strike.
Mr. Swain: The coal-mining industry has, since 1947, had remarkably good labour relations because it established its own conciliation machinery. It is only because of Government intervention that that conciliation machinery has broken down.
Mr. Sillars: Yes. The Government will have to understand that one of the tragedies of the strike is the destruction of the good industrial relations which had been so painstakingly built up since nationalisation. It will be a long time before the relations between the miners and the board are at the point they were in, let us say, November or December, 1971. That is one of the casualties of the strike which the union officials regret very much indeed, as I do.
Mr. Tom King indicated dissent.
Mr. Sillars: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but unfortunately it is a fact.
The Code mentions good human relations. The Government have to understand that they, like industry, do not live in a vacuum. The mining community was well aware of the Government's election promise, which I recall for those hon. Members opposite who have conveniently forgotten it, although the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)

525
did not actually fight his election on that manifesto. The Conservative Party Manifesto in 1970 said that the problem of inflation was that of wages chasing prices. Once in office, however, the Government proceeded to give the doctors an enormous wage increase, not only to the general practitioners but also to the rich consultants in part-time private practice.
The miners have since then seen savage price increases. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to preach about the C.B.I.'s 5 per cent. limit on price increases this year. We have to ask ourselves whether it was not the case that the C.B.I. encouraged prices to let rip between 1970 and mid-1971. In addition to all this, the Housing Finance Bill, for England and Wales, and the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill are now before Standing Committees of the House. The miners fully understand that the 7·9 per cent. offer, set beside all the price increases and the prospective increases in rents, means an effective cut in their standard of living.
Mr. David Lane indicated dissent.
Mr. Sillars: It is no good the Parliamentary Private Secretary shaking his head. It means an effective cut in the standard of living. We are not conducting a seminar at the university Against this background, the Code talks about good human relationships. The Code is supposed to relate to reality. The miners' strike is a reality. What led to it is a reality. The miners' attitude is a reality. The Government's attitude is a reality.
I make one test of any document which comes before this House. Is it on the side of the working people or on the side of the people represented by the Tory Party? The Code of Practice is against the workers and I am on their side against it.
7.20 p.m.
Mr. David Mitchell: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) who represents the left wing of the Scottish Labour Party. He objected forcefully to the Coal Board having withdrawn its offer when the strike took place. It had to. It did not know, the hon. Member does not know, nobody knows, how
526
much damage will be done to the mining industry by the continuation of the strike and the damage which is being done to mining machinery and the coal faces by the short-sighted decision of some sections which refuse to provide proper maintenance——
Mr. Swain: How the hell do you know?
Mr. Mitchell: —of the equipment needed to bring the coal out of the pits when the strike is over.
Mr. Swain: Where are your blisters?
Mr. Mitchell: I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire said that the introduction of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill would bring a real cut in the standard of living of the coal miners. He and his hon. Friends have said that the coal miners are not among the highest paid in the industrial community. They are, therefore, the very people who will benefit most from having the much more substantial rebates available under the Bill.
Mr. Sillars rose——
Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, I will not give way to him.
I turn from the frivolities introduced by the hon. Gentleman to the purpose of our debate. I join with my colleagues in the welcome they have given to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and the position that he has occupied in the debate. He is, as many of us know, as constructive as his hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) in these matters.
This Code is designed, as is the Act, to raise the standards of behaviour and practice on both sides of industry to the level of the best. The right hon. Member was a little unkind in his strictures of the Under-Secretary when he referred to him as having spoken about recourse to the Act being sparing. He knows, and has heard the Government state on many occasions, that it is their hope that there will be sparing recourse to the functions of the Act but that the fact that it is on the Statute Book will influence people's behaviour and that is the key to raising standards of conduct on both sides of

527
industry to ensure that we get better industrial relations.
Mr. Tom King: Have not the Opposition missed the point, which is that this document is really a far greater potential power in influencing the everyday behaviour in every factory and that the Act is merely a fall-back provision if a situation goes well beyond the document.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for that intervention. I was keeping that for my peroration. The Opposition Amendment does not disapprove the contents of the Code although the hon. Member who represents the left wing of the Scottish Labour Party disapproves of the contents. The Amendment condemns it only for being part of the Industrial Relations Act. What is being said is that the Opposition agree with what is best practised in terms of good industrial relations so long as there is no pressure on the trades unions to adhere to it. I do not find that a very convincing stance for the Opposition. The Opposition Front Bench—I noted the words of the right hon. Gentleman—said it was impossible to separate the Code from the Act. The main reason why this is impossible is because this is the one vehicle for enforcement of the Code to ensure that it will be taken into account by both sides in industry. If it is, as is admitted, a guide to good industrial relations, I should have thought that pressure to ensure the guide was made use of would be wholly desirable.
I want to compare the Consultative Document with the Code and then come to some of the points made a little earlier by the hon. Member for Derby, North-East (Mr. Swain) from a sedentary position, and by the representative of the Liberal Party. The Code as published is shorter, and we are delighted to see that. It also contains rather fewer clichés than the original document. I am reminded of the Hollywood producer who said, "I'm getting tired of all these old clichés. Go away and write me some new ones". We have had a number of the clichés removed.
Secondly, the Code lays stress on the responsibility being a joint responsibility for good industrial relations, resting with both sides of industry. This is immensely important and it is a message which ought to go out to all involved with industrial
528
relations. There can be profound disagreements about the contents of contracts between employer and employee, there can be profound disagreements and conflict about the contents of the bargain, but there ought not to be disagreements about how that bargain is to be made, the methods for reaching the bargain, the procedure by which the bargain is arrived at, or the consultation and responsibility involved, because this is of mutual interest to both sides.
Because of that everyone should be seeking to push forward means by which these sorts of things can be discussed and agreed with the minimum of conflict so that we concentrate the difference where it really belongs which is on the financial and similar aspects of the bargain.
The published Code compared with the Consultative Document lays much greater stress on flexibility, which I welcome. With the diversity of industry there are, and should be, different practices provided two conditions are fulfilled. First, there should be the same broad intention of the practice of the firm or union concerned, as is set out in the Code, and secondly the variation must be successful. If it is not, it is right and proper that those who introduced that variation should find themselves out in the cold if there is any inquiry into the consequences and subsequent breakdown of industrial relations.
I turn now to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). I am sorry that having delivered his pearls of wisdom or unwisdom he promptly left us to digest them without the benefit of his further comments. He complained that the Code says that the purpose of business is that it should be run successfully. He said that this sort of thing was nonsensical or so obvious that it was totally unnecessary to include it. Some of the miners who have been allowing the pit face equipment to be destroyed certainly need to be reminded about this. He went on to say that power in industrial relations has moved to the shop floor. The hon. Member for Derby, North-East has interrupted me, and he interrupted earlier when one of my colleagues was speaking. He asked why there were more official strikes last year than for many years past. This ties in with what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery

529
referred to as power having moved to the workshop floor, because what has happened in the last year since the present Government came into office which has caused there to be more official strikes than unofficial strikes has been quite simply that the trade union leadership in a number of cases has become more militant. It has become more militant because it has been trying to recapture the acknowledged leadership of the militants on the workshop floor and of the shop stewards and of the activists within the trade union movement whose leadership it lost when the Labour Party was in office and the trade union leaders, the T.U.C. and many Labour Members of Parliament co-operated with that Government in holding down wages, a policy which never had the support of the militants on the workshop floor.
Mr. Swain: The hon. Member illustrates the militancy of the trade union movement. Can he say to what extent the rank and file of the Tory Party, including Members on the back benches on his side of the House, have become more right wing because of the extreme right-wing leadership they are getting from the Government?
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having at least made his interjection this time from an upright position, but when one is discussing a code of industrial practice and the Opposition Amendment refers only to the Opposition's objection to the Code because it is tied to the Industrial Relations Act, although intrinsically the Code itself is not something they object to particularly strongly, for the hon. Member to make that remark seems to me particularly inappropriate.
I do not want to detain the House for long, but there is a question I should like to ask and there are a couple of points I should like to make. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether, in paragraph 66 of the Code, the term "establishment" means "site"? Because where there is a multi-site firm with several small sites, each with below 250 people, or where the total pay roll of a company is about 250, it would be desirable that we should know what "stablishment" in this context is. Is "establishment" a firm or is it a site? I, certainly, am not quite clear, and I am
530
sure there are others in the same predicament.
I turn to paragraph 129 which refers to the use of arbitration. We in this country have a very curious tradition in relation to arbitration. It is the exact opposite of what happens in the United States. I think it is worth looking at the two ways in which arbitration is used, to see what they lead one to conclude.
In the United States it is the general practice to have a pretty big row about the content of the contract before it is made. They have, as hon. Members on the other side have pointed out on many occasions, more working days lost in industry than we in this country have, but those working days lost come at the end of a contract. The contract probably lasts for three years, and then there is the heck of a big row and perhaps a bigger and better strike than we have—an official strike: I give that to hon. Members opposite. At the conclusion of that strike there are three years of virtual industrial peace, three years during which the terms of the contract are largely adhered to, three years virtually free of strikes. At the termination of that period there is another strike. That does very much less damage to industrial production than the constantly recurring strikes which we have in this country and which are unofficial and unconstitutional and cannot be foreseen before they occur. In the American system what happens is that the company works overtime before the contract comes to an end, and wholesalers stock up with products. So the total effect of the strike is minimal in terms of production, whereas in our country there is a continual deterioration and loss of production throughout the period when the contract runs.
Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman is perpetuating a myth which ought to be knocked on the head. The myth is that there is a higher loss of man days and production due to strikes. None the less there is a lower frequency of strikes, with high productivity, in our experience here. The hon. Member ought to look at the difference of definition between the American definition and ours of what is a strike. The frequency of strikes in the United States is much higher than ours. I would advise the hon. Member to look

531
at the statistical analysis made by Professor Herbert Turner, Montague Burton Professor of Industrial Relations in Cambridge University, in his well-known publication "Is Britain Strike Prone?".
Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Doncaster for that intervention because it allows me to restate the position in relation to United States practice. I do not take it from the writings of a learned professor from some other country, but from statistics published in the United States. In the central statistical analysis which they produce in New York it is shown that the number of strikes which occur during the course of a contract results in the loss of only 12 per cent. of the working days, that is to say that 88 per cent. of the strikes occur at the end of a contract and 12 per cent. during the contract. Of that 12 per cent. which occur during the contract most are not wild-cat strikes which cannot be foreseen as they are in this country. They are strikes about matters which were not covered by the contract—what are known in the United States as strikeable issues—work practices, things of that sort which could not be covered in detail in the contract. Therefore the hon. Gentleman is incorrect in the assumption which he has drawn from the learned document to which he referred. The fact is that over there they concentrate into the period after termination of the contract, before the next contract starts, the period of dispute, and the damage which this does to industrial production is a great deal less than the damage which is done by our continually recurring strikes in this country.
What I am trying to point out is that they use arbitration to settle disputes about interpretation of an agreement. When disputes occur during the time the agreement is running, they are using, as this document suggests should be done, the arbitration machinery to decide the interpretation where there is an issue between employer and union of what has been agreed in the contract.
Curiously, in this country we do the reverse. We tend to have strikes about interpretation of the contract and to have arbitration about the contents of the contract. That seems to me to be a far less satisfactory method, because neither party is fully satisfied with the bargain
532
which is made, because they both have to give in in terms of arbitration, both have to accept something which neither thinks is right and proper and appropriate, and then a strike is resorted to, during the run of a contract, over its interpretation. Therefore, I welcome paragraph 129, which sets our clearly that the Industrial Arbitration Board or other independent arbitrators are particularly suitable for settling disputes of right. I wish it had been possible to go further and say that they are particularly unsuitable for settling disputes as to interest.
That brings me to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who referred to the National Coal Board having allegedly refused to go to arbitration because the National Union of Mineworkers was due to select the arbitrator. This stresses the importance of a pre-dispute decision upon an agreed arbitrator or panel of arbitrators, and I am sorry that this point has not been covered in the Code. Perhaps for one fleeting and exceptional moment the hon. Member for Bolsover will find himself in agreement with me.
The Code is the best booklet on good industrial practice to be published for many years and is a great deal better than most books on the subject. I congratulate the Government on it. It lays stress on where responsibilities lie, consultation, joint conciliation, communication, establishing grievance and disputes procedures, all of which will help to improve industrial relations. I deeply regret that the Opposition have been so shortsighted as to seek to divide on a matter of which there should be universal approval.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State for Employment said that the Government had not been interfering in free collective bargaining. There have been many such incidents in the last 12 months, stretching back to the Government's gross interference with the power workers, when a couple of people from the Treasury, whose names escape me, were sent along to report on the Government's position in that dispute. Since then, while the Secretary of State for Employment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have gone on record as saying that they are

533
not interfering in free collective bargaining, the whole country knows, especially the trade unions affected, that the Government have indeed been interfering.
In the present mining dispute, in the discussions that took place between the National Union of Mineworkers and the Chairman of the Coal Board, Mr. Derek Ezra, in answer to questions by some of my friends in the N.U.M., said that he had been told what was the Government's position on a wages norm. There is plenty of evidence to show that the Government have been interfering in wage negotiations, particularly in the public sector. In a few weeks' time we shall have the power workers' dispute, which will show this up again, and then the N.U.T. and the National Association of Schoolmasters will make it clear once more that the Secretary of State for Employment and the Government are attempting to influence the outcome of so-called free collective bargaining, and have succeeded in doing so to some extent.
In replying to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) talked about the rent rebate scheme. I know that it is somewhat divorced from this debate, but it has been discussed and I must therefore put on record the evidence on this matter which I have.
If a low-paid surface worker in the mining industry—a man for whom these rebates were designed—with a gross income of £18 per week, before stoppages of about £3, had accepted the £2 offer of the Coal Board, he would have had to pay a 10s. increase in rent and another 17p for each £1 because the increase would have brought him in excess of the needs allowance.
While this may not have a great deal to do with the debate, indirectly it has a lot to do with wage negotiations. For a man who is on the threshold of means-tested benefits—rent, family income supplement, free school meals—an increase of £2 means that he escapes from the threshold. He will receive no benefit from the increase because he will thereby lose means-tested benefits and will be taxed in a broad sense——
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the danger of the argument which he is putting? If he is say-
534
ing that benefits should always be taken into account in wage settlements—which should be concerned with the economic state of the industry and the level of wages—he is saying that we should stop giving social benefits. If he is saying that a social benefit which is given to help the most unfortunate people interferes with the honest, straightforward, economic settlement of wages, he is stopping the use of the heart in trying to help those who are badly treated.
Mr. Skinner: Those remarks exemplify the difference between the two sides of the House. Wage settlements for the lower-income groups need to be on such a level as to bring the workers above all these means-tested benefits. I abhor all means-tested benefits, but they should be designed for those who are at the very lowest level. With the 44 means-tested benefits and the new rent rebate system, many more people at the lower end of the income bracket are being brought into benefit. An increase over and above that which has been offered in the mining dispute would take many people out of the benefits threshold and result in less money being allocated to them by the State.
Mr. David Mitchell: Does not the hon. Gentleman equally think that if benefits are confined only to the very lowest paid, there will be a point at which people are at one moment, on one wage level, totally in benefit and at the next step totally out of benefit? The argument of disincentive which the hon. Gentleman is applying would be far greater in that case and, therefore, it makes sense for the Government to phase out benefits at different levels of income so that there is not a sudden and dramatic disincentive, as there would be if benefits were given only to the very lowest paid.
Mr. Skinner: I am making the point that because there are so many means-tested benefits and because many of them can apply to one individual, the net effect is that, unless the man receives a substantial wage increase over and above the so-called Government norm—which apparently does not exist—then he cannot carry himself out of the threshold. If he carries himself only marginally outside the threshold, he is no better off.
To come back to the rent issue, this will add another burden to the means-tested benefits which already apply.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: It may mean bankruptcy and unemployment.
Mr. Skinner: We have those already. We have had more bankruptcies in the last financial year under this Government than in any of the previous six years of Labour Government, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and his colleagues went on record complaining about the level of bankruptcies when Labour was in power.
I come to the second point raised by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, namely that of safety. He trotted out the usual glib phrases about the miners not being involved in carrying out the safety work necessary underground at present. If he knew how miners work and who is responsible for safety, he would not trot out these phrases. The plain fact is that wherever the National Coal Board has made it clear that it is necessary for men to go underground to see that a pit is secure in respect of, say, spontaneous combustion or various other matters of that kind, the N.U.M. has provided safety cover so far as it has been able to do so. There are 40,000 other people in the mining industry who in the main are responsible for safety, unlike the 280,000 members of the N.U.M. It is true that some of those responsible for safety in the deputies' union are to some extent withdrawing their members. Perhaps that might accelerate the end of the strike.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: Would my hon. Friend also comment on some of the photographs which have appeared in the national daily Press, because I know that he, like myself, has been a safety officer representing the N.U.M. in coal mines? From his experience of the coal mining industry—experience which hon. Members opposite do not possess—has he come to the conclusion, as I have, that managements who allow their pits to get into the state depicted in those photographs should be sacked?
Mr. Skinner: One photograph in a pit in my area was taken before the strike commenced, and we have plenty of evidence to prove that. This is one reason that we shall see no more of those photographs appearing in the national dailies this week. We remember the occasion on which the photograph was taken. There
536
were N.U.M. members present and production was being undertaken. When I looked at the photographs in The Guardian and various other newspapers, I remembered the kind of conditions in which I worked over a period of 21 years. I remember some three days after the General Election working down Glapwell Colliery near a face that was not dissimilar from that shown on the photographs displayed in the national Press. I do not remember the management, Derek Ezra, or anybody else rushing off such stills to The Guardian asking for them to be displayed on the front page because Dennis Skinner and thousands of others in Derbyshire were having to work in such conditions. [Interruption.]
Mr. Swain: On a point of order. I wonder whether the Chair would call the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) to speak, since he seems to be making so many comments during my hon. Friend's speech? Does my hon. Friend agree that no pictures were printed of some of the places which were being worked in Derbyshire with an incline of one in two-and-a-half, where the thickest part of the seam was 22 inches and where men worked 7½ hours a day in wet conditions? I wonder whether Derek Ezra, whom I described last week as the highest-paid apprentice in the mining industry, would like to spend two or three weeks in such a mine?
Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice as to the relevance of the present discussion that is taking place?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I think we had better get on with the debate.
Mr. Skinner: I must point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at the beginning of my speech—and I am still at the beginning—I was answering various points raised in the debate. I commenced by answering one of the important points made by the Secretary of State in his opening remarks, and I went on to other points made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, which was coupled with another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. I think it is important in this place that people who are disciplined, like myself, should attempt to answer the points made in

537
debate and should not merely make prepared speeches which do not add to the general decorum of Parliament.
I will now seek to answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, Norh-East (Mr. Swain), who worked in the pits even longer than I did.
Mr. Swain: Yes, for 34 years—and never enjoyed a minute of it!
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend referred to a 22-inch seam and the fact that it was on a steep incline. May I refer to the fact that it was no doubt seams of that kind which led to my hon. Friend receiving a disablement pension for pneumoconiosis. Is my hon. Friend aware that photographs could not be taken of a 22-inch seam in a coal face because the dust would be so intense that a photograph could not be taken? This would not be because miners have withdrawn their so-called safety men but because those are the natural conditions in which so many thousands of miners have to work, many taking home less than £15 per week.
I come to the question of the Code of Practice in a more general way, but nevertheless still attuned, as it must be, to the mining industry. We have had a code of practice in the mining industry for many years. It is somewhat remarkable that some of the phrases contained in the Government's Code of Practice, particularly those contained in paragraph 65 on consultation, seem to have been culled from the code of practice we have operated in the mining industry for many years, namely the National Consultative Agreement. That agreement has existed since nationalisation in 1947 and to some extent it applied during the war years when we had the Essential Works Order.
My point is that the code of practice in the mining industry means very little and to some extent, like the Government's Code of Practice, is an irrelevance. I do not say that about the Industrial Relations Act. I have other things to say about that and I have said them on occasions. Industrial relations in the industry are not decided by a code of practice. Our code of practice did not matter at all until about 1955. The men had their consultative meetings at pit level, area level and national level and they held various safety meetings which arose out of the consultative agreement.
538
But nobody referred to the booklet. I think it can be said that nobody possessed one, though there were many lying around in Hobart House and in the various National Coal Board headquarters.
When men and management sat round a table co-operating, as they did in those years, providing cheap coal for the nation—coal which, if it had been sold in the open market, would have brought in £2,000 million to the Coal Board—they ignored the actual words in that code. They were more concerned with providing, not jobs, because there were plenty of jobs at that time, but as much productive capacity as they could. Therefore the code of practice was meaningless. The situation at that time was one of co-operation and collaboration—in my view, too much. I believe that this Code of Practice will be regarded in much the same way.
However, the mining code of practice changed somewhat once we had an abundance of coal stocks. In 1957 and the years thereafter, we had 40 million tons of coal on the ground, and the management suddenly discovered the existence of the consultative document. Management representatives began going to consultative meetings and interpreting some of the agreements in that document in a more forceful way. The situation had changed. The negotiating position of the National Union of Mineworkers had changed. The union's bargaining posititon was frustrated by the stocks of coal that had been accumulated. In the circumstances, the management was in a position to begin to apply the words and to interpret them as it saw fit.
We are in the position that we see today because of the co-operation and collaboration that the miners gave for many years. It resulted in the gradual deterioration of wages. It was the period of Robens. It was the period when he was kidding along the miners and saying, "Jam tomorrow, lads." It was the period when we were going to the national arbitration tribunal, similar to that referred to in this Code. We had to go to the tribunal because a provision to that effect was written into our code until 1961. It was the period when we were coming back, as we did on one occasion, with 10d. a day.
That was our old friend Lord Alf. At that time he was kidding the miners to

539
Co-operate and collaborate. It resulted in a cut in the real standard of living of miners. I do not mean necessarily a cut for those at the helm, like Robens, and certainly not for those in the higher echelons of management, an increasing number of whom came along when pit closures were taking place and miners were being thrown on the scrap heap in thousands. I am not referring to the period of the Labour Government. I am referring to years before that when the Tory Government threw miners on to the scrap heap without a single penny of redundancy pay, as happened to my own father in 1963. During that period we saw a gradual deterioration in wages. We had Lord Robens promising jam tomorrow. At the same time we had industrial relations referred to, as it is at countless points in this Code of Practice, as becoming" an adjunct of managements".
The National Coal Board had the whip hand. They had more professionals in the higher echelons of management. There were fewer miners for them to supervise. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East has been heard to remark, there will soon be as many sheriffs in the mining industry as there are cowboys.
All this has resulted in the conflict that we have today, and it is tied up with the so-called code of practice which existed in the mining industry at the time. Such a code of practice applies in different ways depending on the strength of the working people in any industry at any given time. The same will apply to this Code of Practice.
However, the mining dispute has been caused by other factors over and above the situation that I have described. It has become apparent, certainly in the last 16 months, that this Government have been engaged in a blatant, premeditated attempt to undermine the bargaining power of mineworkers by importing coal at the rate of 5 million tons a year. The ban on coal imports was lifted on 3rd December, 1970, with a view to undermining the bargaining position of the miners. The present dispute is the result of the collaboration and co-operation which took place in past years, now with added Government interference.
540
I want now to refer to the breaking of agreements which has occurred, certainly in my own area and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). When miners, carrying out their consultative document, implemented an overtime ban on 1st November, 1971, almost every Monday at many Derbyshire pits the National Coal Board sent back thousands of miners and refused to pay them. By doing that, the N.C.B. was breaking the Essential Works Order Agreement, the National Power Loading Agreement set up in 1966, and the recently established agreement of 1971, namely the Third Day Wages Structure Agreement.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If the present Act had been in operation then, the union could have taken the Coal Board to the Industrial Court for breaking those agreements.
Mr. Swain: No, it could not.
Mr. Skinner: If the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) had allowed me to continue, I was about to explain that we have an arbitration system at area level, notwithstanding that at national level. The Coal Board having deprived Derbyshire miners of £250,000 by breaking these three agreements, the area general secretary of the Derbyshire area decided to implement the area arbitration procedure. However, arbitration for an area is decided by one of a panel of arbitrators. The National Coal Board and the union selects an arbitrator in turn. Unfortunately, it so happened that it was the turn of the Derbyshire area of the union to select the arbitrator. Because of that and because the Coal Board thought that he might be favourable to the miners—indeed, he could hardly have been anything else since the Board had broken three agreements—arbitration was refused. So let us have no more nonsense about the miners refusing arbitration at national level.
Notwithstanding the code of practice, the consultative document, the consultative meetings and safety meetings, and notwithstanding all the written words, the net effect has been the present dispute. The Government, allied with the Coal Board, have decided to take on the miners. No code of practice will bring the miners back to the negotiating table.

541
That can be done only if the Prime Minister decides to stop flexing his muscles against the miners to prove that he is a man. Only in that way can we get to the negotiating table and a reasonable settlement.
We are in the 25th day of a strike, and we are here discussing the Government's Code of Practice. I suggest that the Secretary of State for Employment might have been better employed today, instead of coming to this House and presenting this flimsy, irrelevant document, in going to the executive meeting in Euston Road this morning and then on to Hobart House to see Derek Ezra and to tell him the price of butter. He did not seem to know the other night when he was asked by David Frost, who, incidentally, is no friend of mine. I can tell Derek Ezra that the price of butter has gone up 43 per cent. in the past year under this Government. My wife has a piece of paper behind the clock giving details of the price increases. She put it there when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested to housewives that they put a piece of paper behind their clocks. My wife did——
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Where does she buy her butter?
Mr. Skinner: She gets it from the Co-op and pays about 7s. 6d. a pound—[Interruption.] I suggest that the hon. Member for Peterborough does his own conversion into decimal currency if he wishes. I prefer the old system——
Sir Harmar Nicholls: So do I.
Mr. Skinner: I know a number of hon. Members opposite do. Let the Secretary of State go along to Derek Ezra and tell him to take advantage of the training scheme and to get down that pit for six months when the conflict is over—[Interruption.]
Mr. Swain: I will throw this bloody book at you if you do not shut up. Tell the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) to be quiet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I will throw this book at him.
Mr. Skinner: Right, Tom. We were doing all right. Do you want to come in?
Mr. Swain: Not at this moment.
Mr. Skinner: Let the right hon. Gentleman get along to Derek Ezra and tell him that it is a rotten, lousy job. Almost everybody in the country will accept that, but he could not accept it on television.
What is more important, the right hon. Gentleman should tell him that there is £200 million worth of equipment down the pits. Notwithstanding all this talk about safety, the plain fact is that if all the miners in the country went down the pits and took part in safety measures, they could do nothing about that hydraulic equipment. That can be done only by moving the coal from the face, by producing the coal, by ripping off another strip, and by moving the hydraulics forward. It can be done only in that fashion. The right hon. Gentleman would be better disposed doing that today than bringing the Code of Practice to the House.
Already £60 million has been lost through this strike—and we are talking about a Code of Practice. Another week adds another £10 million. That discounts any loss on the £200 million worth of equipment. It also discounts the power cuts which are likely to take place in the next few days. There is only one week's supply at the Battersea Power Station just down the road. I suppose that could apply to many other power stations up and down the country. Yet, here we are discussing this Code of Practice and allowing the matter to drift.
The majority of people in this country have made it abundantly clear by their voices, by the Press, by the media generally and, indeed, by the Opinion Polls if anyone takes any notice of them, that they believe the miners should get a great deal more than the £2 which they have been offered. That is what the Government should be doing.
I hope that I have not detained the House too long on this matter. In the absence of any statement from the Minister this week on this conflict, it was necessary to ally the struggle which is taking place outside with this debate. This is not the most important place in the world. We only react to events. I call upon the Secretary of State for Employment, and perhaps some of his colleagues on the Treasury Bench, to have a discussion about this matter

543
tonight. Notwithstanding that they might get a vote in favour of the Code of Practice, perhaps in their jubilation they might concede something. I suggest that they should get along to Euston Road and see Lawrence Daly and Joe Gormley, that they should see Derek Ezra, tell him to shake himself, tell him that there is some money in the kitty for a capital reconstruction of the Coal Board's finances, and that they should take account of that £2,000 million which was lost as a result of providing cheap coal to industry when a much better price could have been obtained on the open market.
I suggest that, taking all these matters into account and the collaboration and co-operation which took place during those years—too much in my opinion—the right hon. Gentleman should end the dispute by giving the miners a decent, honourable settlement.
8.14 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I will not follow too far the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It was a very good speech—according to his point of view, of course.
Mr. Michael McGuire: It was a good speech according to anybody's point of view.
Mr. Lewis: I think that I have heard everything now. When I heard the hon. Member for Bolsover talk about maintaining the decorum of the House, I thought that he must have been reading the Code of Practice before making his speech.
I would say only one thing about the miners' position. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be a good idea if the leaders of the N.U.M. got together with Derek Ezra round the table. I think that my right hon. Friend would accept that it would be a good thing if they would do just that. If they are not prepared to do it by themselves, then let Vic Feather of the T.U.C. get them round the table. This is what the country wants and expects. People do not take any pleasure from the fact that the miners are still on strike. They believe that the strike should be settled, precisely as the hon. Gentleman said, by getting round the table.
Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman must try not to delude the general public. The fact is that the Coal Board cannot negotiate further with the N.U.M. because the Government have clearly indicated that an increase cannot be granted in the public sector.
Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to take it from me, I can only say that that is not correct. There is nothing to prevent the Coal Board and the N.U.M. getting round the table and discussing what settlement may be possible.
I want to get back to what we are really debating, having been drawn into other waters—reservoirs or otherwise—by the hon. Member for Bolsover.
This Code of Practice is the result of the Industrial Relations Act, 1971. It has been prepared after my right hon. Friend has taken account of views from many places. One advantage is that at any rate, the Code is in plain English. We might recommend it to Ministers when they draw up Bills or to chairmen of Boards when they put out company reports. It is a concise document. It provides a code which represents the best that is available, so it must be of advantage. There must be many in management who have not appreciated the best practice in industrial relations until seeing this document. It is to their advantage to read and to seek to apply it. For anyone to think that it is a cure for all our ills would be nonsense. It is not. Furthermore, many parts will be accepted and implemented; other will not.
I have no doubt that if the Industrial Relations Court has to look at the Code when cases come before it, it will not be on the basis that the parties have fully followed the Code, but on the basis that they have done their best to carry out some features in an endeavour to promote good industrial relations within the company concerned.
There is a general disposition on the part of the British from time to time to indicate to outsiders that we have bad industrial relations. Our strike record is frequently quoted as an indication of those bad industrial relations. However, broadly, we have very good industrial relations. We have had strikes, but many companies in this country are strike-free from one year to another.

545
Managements and unions get together to the mutual benefit of the companies and the workpeople, so that the companies are profitable and the workpeople earn good wages.
During the last few months our export figures have gone up and up. Despite the strike situation, we have more consumer goods on the market and we are exporting more than we have ever done in our history. It is important that we should recognise that we do not always criticise ourselves to the extent that we encourage outsiders to take a wrong view of our industrial situation.
The Code is a mixture of old and new. Those who have been involved in industrial relations for many years know that there is much in it going back to the days of the Essential Work Orders. It may surprise the hon. Member for Bolsover to know that I was involved in industrial relations at that time. In those days we were implementing something which was quite new. Ernie Bevin laid clown that particular code. It was legally enforceable in those days, and much of what was done then and carried on during the war and after formed the basis of the advance that was experienced in the fifties and 'sixties. In many ways companies have failed to carry out the proposals of the Essential Work Order. If they had been fully implemented throughout industry we probably would not have needed this Code today.
There are two new things in the Code which have not been mentioned today on which I should like to comment. The first is that there is now in the Code something positive about race relations. That provision should be of interest to Mr. Mark Bonham-Carter, the Chairman of the Community Relations Board, who recently said that the Government should do something to improve race relations in both housing and employment. We are not here concerned with housing, but the Code does say that there should be not merely an attempt to avoid discrimination, but that there should be a positive policy to promote equal opportunities in employment for all races. Because the Code contains that provision it will be possible to deal with any suggestions that a company has not provided equal opportunity of employment for all races.
546
The second new thing in the Code is the provision about informing employees of changes that may be about to take place by order of the management. The Code imposes upon management the obligation to inform right down the line. That is a valuable provision, and I believe that it will become a growing part of management's function in industry to make sure that when it makes decisions—in fact in advance of the decisions being made; while they are being discussed—there is consultation with the trade unions right down to the shop floor level.
There is missing from the Code one thing which I believe could well be considered for the future. Large undertakings should have industrial relations directors. I agree that that is not possible in a small firm, but it should be possible with the larger organisations. Instead of there being just managers and personnel managers, there ought to be industrial relations directors, because it is important that in the boardroom as much attention should be paid to industrial relations as to finance, sales, and anything else.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I agree with my hon. Friend, and there is a strong implication in the Code that as much attention should be paid to industrial relations as to other vital functions such as marketing and finance.
Mr. Lewis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that statement, and I am glad that the point has been taken.
For the first time the Code lays down the obligations of supervisors. This is perhaps the most important level of management in industry. The supervisor level in firms has received inadequate attention and training over the years. There have been insufficient opportunities for promotion to this grade. It is this level of management which provides the link between the top management and the trade union shop stewards, and it is vital that the best material is employed there.
Mr. Swain: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Industrial Relations Director of the National Coal Board was not allowed to say a word during the negotiations which led to the present strike?
Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether that is relevant to what I was saying about supervisors, but the need for good communications between management and unions is as necessary in the coal industry as in any other.
There is some ambivalence in paragraph 30; under the heading
"planning and Use of Manpower",
because it says:
"avoid unnecessary fluctuations in manpower."
At a time of change in industry I do not think that it is possible to avoid fluctuations in manpower. Indeed, the proposals introduced for retraining show that my right hon. Friend recognises that.
I now want to deal with what I regard as the most important part of this document, the part dealing with communications, collective bargaining and employee representation at the place of work. Those three matters are inter-connected. Communication and consultation at the works itself is of vital importance. The need for that to occur is laid out in simple terms in the Code, yet it is surprising how often over the years directors and managers have failed to appreciate the need for communication. The same is, of course, true of the trade unions themselves. Communications from the management to the trade unions must be followed by that information being handed down by the shop stewards to the people on the shop floor. It is they who must be told what the management is asking them to do.
In Bristol recently a strike at the Rolls-Royce factory lasted for nine weeks and did a great deal of damage. The company is in enough trouble without having to deal with strikes. After a time the voices of the people at shop floor level were taken on whether the strike should continue. Between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of those on the shop floor wanted the strike to end, yet at a meeting of shop stewards there was only a very small majority in favour of ending it. Something is wrong there. Either the shop stewards do not know what is happening on the shop floor, because communications are bad or, and I hesitate to say this, they deliberately misrepresented the position, which I do not think they would do. Communications must be right between shop stewards and the people they represent, be it at a fac-
548
tory, or in an organisation like the National Coal Board which employs people in pits all over the country.
Mr. Heffer: But is not the hon. Gentleman aware that shop stewards make recommendations at meetings of workers which are either accepted or rejected? I have known their recommendations to be rejected—on one occasion when the shop steward recommended the workers not to take strike action. Shop stewards are not angels or something separate from the workers. They are elected to do a job and the matter has to go back to the workers for them to make up their minds. There is nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Lewis: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Certainly it has happened that shop stewards have suggested that men should go back and that this suggestion has been rejected. All I am asking is that the shop stewards should know what the men think. They should not be able to say that they should go back, for instance, if the feeling down below is that they should not. The views of the men on the shop floor, after some persuasion by the shop stewards, should be known.
Communication in this context is just as important as at management level. That is why the Code contains a clear indication of training for shop stewards. I hope that management will accept that there should be full training of this kind and that the shop stewards should be given the tools to do the job. Then, the relationships between management and unions will be the better and there will be less disruption.
As I said at the start, this Code is obviously not the panacea for all our ills, which are sometimes exaggerated. But, over the years, the Code will influence industry so that those who are not so well served in their industrial relations practice will come up to the best level of those who are.
I am amazed that the party opposite is voting against this Code tonight. I can only think that they are doing it because of the ghost of the Bill which is gone. They think that this is the last chance that they will have to vote against that Bill, which they hated and which is now an Act.

549
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said that they would repeal the Act, and this has been said many times by hon. Members opposite. But many parts of the Act are favourable to the party opposite. They will have to go through the whole process of repeal and then bring back the parts they like—and they will then face our opposition. In political terms, they had better think again.
The Act will be on the Statute Book for many years before hon. Members opposite come back into Government—even supposing, which is highly unlikely, that they won the next General Election. This Act will be there whether any of us likes it or not. This Code is linked to it and must help to remedy some of the fears of hon. Members opposite. One can only think that the Opposition are now voting against anything and everything.
8.33 p.m.
Mr. Ted Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument. I must confess that I lost interest in the train of his thought when he said that we have very good industrial relations in this country. Of course we have had in the past, during the six years of Labour Government, when we lost only 4½ million days per year. Last year, under the Tory Government, we lost 13 million days and the previous year 11 million days. In the first four weeks of this year, we have lost 1 million days because of the miners' strike.
This is a record breaking Government: a record of 1 million unemployed, a record increase in food prices, and probably now a record number of industrial stoppages, all as a result of Tory rule. We have to consider this document in relation to the situation which we face.
It was a great pleasure for me to follow—he was the last hon. Member on this side to speak—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsolver (Mr. Skinner), who speaks with great authority about coal mining. There is no better starting place from which to consider the Code than the mining industry. The Code is acceptable to the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board and has been for many years. Those bodies have a fine procedure
550
agreement providing for consultative committee at pit, divisional and national level. They have a communications system, redundancy agreements, and so on. This system of conciliation could have been modelled upon the Code.
Yet nearly 300,000 miners are on strike—not because they have not practised a code of conduct, but because the cost of food, for example, has risen by 13 per cent. in the last year and the miners have demanded higher wages, but they have been offered an increase of only 7·9 per cent. As the miners have slipped down the national wages table from almost the top to about seventeenth, they say that they want to be compensated not only for the increase in the cost of living which has taken place but also for the projected increase in the cost of living. House rents will rise by £1 in October. This is the real cause of the dispute, not that there was an absence of conciliation machinery.
As a former trade union official, I am familiar with conciliation machinery in the electricity supply industry. That machinery is a model of its kind and was drafted by Lord Citrine, former General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, who was then Chairman of the Electricity Council. In the electricity supply industry there are joint consultative committees at area, local and national level on which the unions are represented at all stages and to which they can take their grievances.
Even with this ideal machinery, the power workers are now discussing whether to take industrial action, possibly in a few days. They may decide to go slow or to take a form of industrial action because they, too, have had to face an increase in the cost of living due to Tory economic policies and because they are not being compensated for the increase. This is another industrial dispute in a situation in which the workers have ideal conciliation machinery, which in many cases is far better than the Code.
The Code has the blessing of the Government, the civil servants in the Department and the employers, but it does not have the blessing of the trade unions. The unions have refused to consult the Government on the Code. The unions have said that every union could incorporate these provisions in any procedure agreement. Many employers refuse to incorporate many of the Code's provisions into procedure agreements.

551
It has been pointed out that this is not a legally enforceable document. Many gates are left wide open so that employers can escape the provisions of the Code. Various paragraphs begin—"As far as practicable the employer shall do so-and-so", or "as far as consistent with operational efficiency the employer shall do so-and-so." It is easy for the engineering employers to say that it is not practicable or it is not consistent with operational efficiency for them to obey certain parts of the Code.
I am very familiar with the procedure agreement in the engineering industry—the so-called York Memorandum which sets out the procedure which the unions have to follow to settle disputes. First of all the employee must try to settle it with his departmental head. If that fails, a work conference is held at which the union meets the management. If there is failure to agree, a local conference is held between the local employers' association and union officials. If that fails, the matter goes to a national central conference, perhaps in London. Months elapse before all the procedures have been exhausted and a settlement of the dispute is arrived at.
When a union says, "We are pledged not to take strike action until we have exhausted the procedure," it surely has a right to say to, for example, the Engineering Employers' Federation that it, too, should not change the terms of employment without going through a similar procedure. There have been long negotiations between the engineering unions and the employers over revising the procedure agreement.
It seems, therefore, that many employers will escape through the open door to which I have referred by saying that something is either not practicable or not consistent with operational efficiency.
Mr. Dudley Smith: The Act lays down that observance or non-observance of the Code can be taken into account by the industrial court when it considers the various issues that are before it. It is the attitude of either the employers or employees which will count, including the way in which they have observed or have not observed the Code.
Mr. Fletcher: I am aware that the Code can be submitted to the industrial court and that if an employer is in breach of it, that fact can be taken into consideration by the court. But the unions are boycotting the court, so that it will be a one-sided affair. There are also the many loopholes to which I have referred; for example, an employer can say that the Code refers to the need for things to happen if they are practicable or consistent with operational efficiency. It will not be difficult for an employer to say, "I agree that the Code is good, but it is not practicable in my industry".
Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these qualifications must exist if the Code is to cover the whole of industrial life? What is apposite to one section of industry will not be apposite to another. Nevertheless, the general provisions are clear for those who are concerned with industrial relations.
Mr. Fletcher: Perhaps I can spell out in an elementary way what I mean by giving the Minister an example. The Code refers in paragraph 45 to the procedure to be adopted when dealing with redundancies. Certain matters are set out for ideal employers to operate. The paragraph refers to restrictions on recruitment, retirement and reductions in overtime. An employer might say, "I accept all that, but in this firm it is not practicable to end overtime. To do so would not be consistent with operational efficiency." There are all sorts of loopholes in the Code.
I would describe this document as a child's guide to what industrial relations should be. Trade union officials with many years experience of negotiating are treating this Code with much hilarity, particularly when they read at the very outset:
"Principal aim of management is to conduct the business of the undertaking successfully."
The Department is trying to teach its grandmother to suck eggs by setting out in an elementary manner things which good industrialists accept, anyway, and which good trade unionists try to incorporate into agreements.
Even the items set out in paragraph 45 would not be acceptable to a trade union

553
official in a factory. They would certainly not be acceptable to me as a trade union official. I would want to have many other matters incorporated in a redundancy agreement, including length of notice, compensation, what is to happen to superannuation and so on.
This Code is much too simplistic. It is set out in language which might be suitable for an elementary class beginning to understand the nature of trade unionism, but it would be laughed at by shop stewards, who know that the document is propaganda attempting to suggest that the lion will lie down with the lamb, that there will be no conflict in industry and that the underlying motive of the Government is to tell us to love one another. This does not truly reflect the situation in industry today.
The trade unionist exists and is a member of his union to get the best possible terms and conditions of employment. Consequently, he has had many years of struggle against the employer, as the miners are struggling today, to get a decent existence. He knows that it is only the strength of his union organisation that will enable him to obtain a reasonable standard of existence. Consequently, we have to consider the Code in relation to the Industrial Relations Act, because it is an offshoot of the Act.
The Code can be used by the Commission on Industrial Relations and by courts of inquiry. It can be held as a document which can help to decide the guilt of individuals or of organisations. It can be used before a court in the same way as the Highway Code, which can be used in deciding, for instance, questions arising from a traffic accident, although it is a little different from the Highway Code. I cannot imagine the Highway Code saying, "As far as practicable, you should drive on the left side of the road", or, "As far as is consistent with operational efficiency, you should cross the road by a pedestrian crossing. "The Highway Code is a little more forthright than this woolly document, which begins sentences by saying, "Please yourselves, lads. If you would like to implement it, that is all right with us. But if you do not consider it practicable, or if it would affect your profits, do not bother, because the courts of inquiry will understand this when the document is brought to their attention."
554
That is why the trade union movement does not take the document seriously. We take seriously many of the things spelt out in the document, but we say that they can be obtained by negotiation and collective bargaining through a good procedure agreement. It is not necessary for the Government to enforce this by either propaganda or hidden threats, by saying that it can be used against people by committees of inquiry, industrial courts, and so on.
The trade union movement is not intimidated by the Act. It certainly will not be intimidated by this document. I reassure hon. Members opposite that when the Labour Party is returned to power, the trade union movement will see that not only the Act but also this document end up in the waste paper basket.
8.48 p.m,
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I take one leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and answer right at the beginning of my speech one or two of the points raised by hon. Members opposite.
First, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) commented on my change of position on the important issue of the Common Market. I made what I believe to be a justified change of opinion, and I issued a statement to the electorate of my constituency before the date of the election was announced. Obviously my election was fought, amongst other things, on the Common Market issue. I put it to the electorate, and I won the election, albeit somewhat narrowly. Perhaps I am one of the few hon. Members who can say that I fought an election on the Common Market issue and came here on a pro-Market ticket.
Mr. Ewing: My hon. Friend was saying that the hon. Member was selected as an anti-Common Market candidate but finished up fighting the by-election as a pro-Market candidate. Therefore, there is no consistency in the hon. Gentleman's position.
Mr. Winterton: Many of those who selected me thoroughly supported my change of position.
The coal industry has, rightly, featured in the debate. The present situation is a tragedy. I can only repeat what I said

555
in the debate on the dispute, that the sooner the parties in the industry get together, and the sooner the strike is ended, the better it will be for the miners, the National Coal Board and the country.
The future progress and prosperity of our country are matters of concern for every man, woman and child. Good industrial relations in the wider sense of the term are a vital ingredient in the achievement of satisfactory social progress and industrial prosperity. Whatever some hon. Members may say, the reform of industrial relations was demanded by the electorate. We made it an important priority policy in our General Election Manifesto, and one of the reasons why we achieved power in June, 1970, was our clear determination to carry through this much-needed and overdue reform. The Labour Party had an opportunity to do it when they were in office, but failed because of the opposition from certain militant unions, despite the fact that many of their Front Bench spokesmen had declared that a reform of industrial relations was essential to the future prosperity of the country, a matter that is entirely above party politics. Further, they said that it was essential to the continuance of their party's term of office.
Mr. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the Tory Party's promise to introduce industrial relations legislation was on the premise that the Act would reduce, and quickly, the number of strikes experienced under the Labour Government. Will the hon. Gentleman now explain to his electorate why, although they have the Act, there has been a threefold increase in the number of strikes?
Mr. Winterton: The number of strikes was almost halved last year compared with the previous year. No one believed that the Act would solve our industrial problems overnight, but I am strongly of the opinion that in three or four years we shall see a marked improvement because of the Act, which the House had the courage to pass after many late night sittings. Perhaps I can consider myself fortunate in not having been here then, and therefore not having to take the wear and tear that was imposed on many Members.
556
The Act was the first comprehensive legislation of its kind in our history, and the Code is an integral and essential part of it. Its main objective is to spread the best possible standards of behaviour in British industry, to the advantage of employers, unions, management, employees and, ultimately, the country.
Many hon. Members will regret the resolution passed unanimously at the Labour Party Conference on 5th October last year. That resolution called for a declaration by the Parliamentary Labour Party that a future Labour Government would repeal the Act in their first Session.
I am not one of those on this side of the House who believe that the present Act, which is to incorporate the Code, is a cure or over-all panacea for all the industrial relations problems, in which personal human relationships, already reflected in speeches today, play a vital part, I am of opinion that, in the light of experience, the Act will from time to time have to be amended. I believe that to be a constructive and reasonable approach. But the Act as it stands is itself a constructive and reasonable basis from which to start to improve a vital limb of out national economic life. Without doubt it provides a proper and acceptable framework of law within which improved relationships between employers and management, men and unions can develop.
The ever-worsening industrial relations trend in the late 1960s—under, of course, a Labour Government—has been basically reversed under the present Government. Despite the gloom cast by hon. Members opposite, as I have pointed out, the number of strikes in 1971 was nearly half that of the previous year.
Communication in all walks of life is one of life's greatest disappointments. Whatever has gone before, this Code emphasises most strongly the importance of communication and consultation in all establishments, whatever their size. Surely this is vital, because we must promote and improve operational efficiency and personal understanding and foster the individual employee's interest and participation in his own company or firm. With the restructuring of industry, which has been a large feature of recent years and which will continue for many years to

557
come, and with the unfortunate but inevitable demise of a number of very large and traditional industries, resulting in redundancy and movement of labour, communication and consultation are of particular importance.
It is interesting to note that the Code emphasises:
"Major changes in working arrangements should not be made by management without prior discussion with employees or their representatives."
On the subject of consultation in particular, the Code is clear—that individual plants which employ more than 250 persons should have suitable and systematic arrangements for employers' and employees' representatives to meet regularly, and perhaps this meets the point put my my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). It stresses that management should take the initiative in establishing and maintaining proper consultative arrangements best suited to the company's circumstances, in co-operation with the employees' representatives and trade unions concerned, those arrangements in no way debarring or discouraging trade unions—rather the reverse. What exception can any hon. or right hon. Member take to this Code? Despite what has been said I do not need to remind the House that we are debating the Code of Practice allied to the Industrial Relations Act——
Mr. Ted Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read his speech?
Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order for an hon. Member to refresh his memory from copious notes.
Mr. Winterton: I thank you for that kindness and generosity Mr. Speaker. The fact is that the Industrial Relations Act has been passed by a large majority of this House after long discussion. I hope that hon. Members opposite will accept a democratic decision which has substantial public backing and allow the Act over the next few years to prove how successful or otherwise it can be in achieving more harmonious and progressive industrial relations.
The Code places great responsibility on management to promote good industrial relations. It states that the prime responsibility for that promotion should lie with management. Industrial relations
558
in the widest sense must involve trade unions and employees, all those involved in a company. Where trade unions are recognised for negotiating purposes management should make it abundantly clear to its employees that it encourages membership of a recognised trade union and full participation in all its activities.
Dealing with trade union responsibility the Code stresses that they should take all reasonable steps to ensure that their officials, including shop stewards—who were referred to in glowing terms by an hon. Member opposite and with whom I would generally agree—and members of the unions should observe agreements knowingly entered into and should stick to and use agreed procedures. Within the Code of Practice I particularly welcome the encouragement given by the Government to occupational pension and sick pay schemes.
Both employee and employer are vital to industry. I hope that an increasing number of companies, large and small, will establish within their structures a profit-sharing scheme because in this way more people will have a real interest in the company——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have absolutely no control over the length of speeches but this is the time of night when speeches are usually rather short. I want to call two more hon. Members before I call the Front Bench speakers. I hope the hon. Member will bear that in mind.
Mr. Winterton: I will. This will be the last sentence I shall utter tonight. Let us forget the power factors which have arisen so frequently from the benches opposite and let us rather think of the human factors which are surely more important.
9.4 p.m.
Mr. John D. Grant: It is no mere coincidence that the Code of Industrial Practice will come into operation on 28th February, the same day as that on which the rest of the Industrial Relations Act comes into force, with the exception of one or two matters. It means that from 28th February the package is virtually complete. The Code is an integral part of that package and it is for that reason that we condemn it—it is guilt by association. The Code imposes no legal obligation but on the

559
other hand we know that the N.I.R.C. and the industrial tribunals will take it into account when reaching decisions. That makes it part of the State apparatus which the unions find so objectionable.
The Secretary of State in the debate on the Code last October admitted that it was complementary to, and, as he put it, mutually supporting the Act, and he also said that the Code could stand on its own. I do not think he said "on its own two feet", but certainly he said "on its own". I should have thought that somewhat contradictory. Be that as it may, on its own the Code is largely unobjectionable. Perhaps it would be easier to slap the Minister's wrist—I certainly would not want to pull his hair—for what the Code omits rather than for what it contains.
The draft was attacked previously for being full of clichés and platitudes. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) was perhaps unduly kind in suggesting that it contained some restatement of principle. I thought it rather harsh to describe it in that way. I would have thought the final version had been well polished, but many of the same clichés still shine out undimmed by the passage of time. It is full of very tedious statements and, in the brief time in which I have to speak, I will give only one example, from the part about "Communication and Consultation". Paragraph 54 says:
"In its day-to-day conduct of business, management needs both to give information to employees and to receive information from them."
Fancy starting a paragraph like that, If that is not a cliché, what is? What is the purpose of a statement like that in a document of this kind?
I suppose that, in a sense, that part of the Code overlaps the part on disclosure, which is quite useless in its present form, though we have a promise that it will be revised when the Industrial Relations Commission reports. It certainly will need revising, otherwise, to judge from the present wording of the Code, there must be some acute doubt of its value, because the provision about a company not being obliged to disclose information where its competitive interests are concerned will be used by some employers
560
to keep disclosure of information down to what will be a meaningless minimum. One certainly hopes that that will be revised considerably.
There are other omissions. My right hon. Friend mentioned the question of union participation in decision making. I should have liked to go on a little about that but I shall not do so in view of the time. But I would mention the status quo because, despite what the Secretary of State said, he has funked this issue in this document. He virtually admitted that in his remarks today. The document does not deal with that matter. At this very crucial time in the engineering industry, not only our biggest industry but our biggest export industry, I do not see how lie can ignore that. Last October he was saying in the debate at that time that lie wanted the final wording to include something about it, and he said tonight that it goes to the very root of the problem. I find it extraordinary that, with all the expertise within his Department and at his command, he cannot produce guidelines on the status quo which would be useful to both sides of industry. The document is inadequate in that respect and makes it legitimate to ask when the right hon. Gentleman will begin to tackle the problem.
He certainly caused some problems with the Act, even if one believes, as he does, that it will work. As the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, it can work effectively only in the long term. I think it will work adversely, but, at any rate, it will be in the long term.
We also know that in recent months the Secretary of State has turned arbitration and conciliation into dirty words in the industrial vocabulary. I do not think anything in the Code as it is can rescue them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has already mentioned the miners' strike. The right hon. Gentleman has turned his back on that, and I am beginning to wonder whether he is waiting for somebody to die of cold before he acts. Yet in all this lengthy document he fails to deal with the status quo, which is an immediate and relevant question. This shows how the Government have their priorities wrong.
I have no time to squabble over the details of the document. Much of it is reasonable as far as it goes. The Secretary of State said that he wants the Code

561
to be as good and as effective as possible. He also said that, put into practice, it could bring about an enormous improvement in the general standards of industrial and human relations. That is a worthwhile aim which I share, but I object to the methods he has adopted.
Earlier, he presented a picture of the Code galvanising industry, putting forward a portrait of people buzzing all over the country with the Code in their pockets. He omitted to say that the T.U.C. had a programme of action, before the Industrial Relations Act and before the Code, which was virtually halted as a result of the Government's activities on industrial relations.
While the Government pursue economic, social and industrial relations policies which are regressive and repressive, while they continue to alienate the workpeople, they cannot expect them to grasp the Code which the Secretary of State has presented to the House as an olive branch. Whatever the shortcomings of British industry—and it certainly has shortcomings—it is the Government Front Bench which needs a code of practice.
9.12 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I am glad to be allowed a few minutes in which to support the Code, not necessarily because I think it is perfect in every detail but because it has a great deal of strength as well as some weaknesses. I have sufficient confidence in my right hon. Friend to know that, if after experience the weaknesses perhaps stand out more than the strength, he will have the courage and the knowledge to come back to the House of Commons to amend the Code.
I am sorry that the Parliamentary Labour Party is unanimously opposed to the Code. In my part of the world, which does not necessarily support the Government, there are large numbers of trade unionists who welcome the Industrial Relations Act and the Code. It is a great mistake for the Parliamentary Labour Party members to talk as though they represented the views of all trade unionists. I say at once, with great pride, that I should not be in the House of Commons had I not had the support of a large number of trade unionists in
562
the General Election. I sometimes feel that the Parliamentary Labour Party knows far too little about the real views of trade unionists.
A meeting which I was addressing recently in my part of the world was attended by a large group of miners from Ashington, which, after all, is' not a Conservative area. The people there have good musical voices, and the miners sang some songs. After saying that their next song was intended as a tribute to me they sang, "There is nothing like a Dame".
There are very few members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who know Ashington as well as I do. I am certain that none of the miners who sang that song wanted me as their Member of Parliament, or indeed wanted my Government in power. But in my part of the world when we are not fighting tooth and nail, we can have very good industrial relations. I suspect that even those few miners present, and probably quite a number of others, would welcome the industrial relations legislation and the Code which we are discussing tonight.
There is one other point I wish to raise. I have had an opportunity to consider the problems which face are professional engineers who themselves are very good trade unionists in my part of the country and who belong to the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers. These men are being very badly treated by their employers, Messrs. C. E. A. Parsons. I had representations from that body making certain comments on the Code which it would like to see altered. I discovered that it is impossible to amend the Code and that there were certain reasons why the recommendations of that body could not be accepted. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend in his reply could give reasons why those recommendations by that professional body of engineers were not accepted by the Government.
I hope that the Code of Practice will add to the value of the Industrial Relations Act and when the next General Election comes, which we shall win, I hope that there will be no opportunity for hon. Members opposite to carry out their threats to destroy the Industrial Relations Act.
9.17 p.m.
Mr. Harold Walker: Let me at once set to rest the doubt which appears to reside in the mind of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) about the intentions of the next Labour Government two or three years hence, according to when his right hon. Friend decides to hold an election. It is an unequivocal commitment from these benches to repeal the Industrial Relations Act.
Mr. Woodhouse rose——
Mr. Walker: But I have only just begun.
Mr. Woodhouse: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me after one sentence of my speech. May I ask whether what he has said refers to every single Section of the Act?
Mr. Walker: I am sure the House does not expect me to analyse what it took the House many hundreds of hours to consider last year. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I wondered why we spent all those days and nights on that legislation, with all the tools for dealing with the situation which it was supposed to contain, when it has been so ineffective to deal with an emergency situation such as that which now faces the country. We are still waiting for the Secretary of State for Employment to say whether he will use his powers. If he wants to tell House his view, I shall be quite happy to give way to him.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) commented on the apathetic attendance of trade unionists. I thought that this was impertinent coming from that hon. Gentleman, who is an engineering employer and who at the time he made that statement was surrounded by seven of his hon. Friends. I thought it rather impertinent coming from him of all people, an engineering employer, and doubly impertinent from a Tory back-bencher who was surrounded by only seven of his hon. Friends, one of whom was a conscript in the P.P.S.s seat——
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There were no more than that on the hon. Gentleman's own side.
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friends had made it clear to me that they were not in the least interested in and would not give listening time to a debate on the Code of Practice. What is more, they were engaged in a very important and, I understand, packed meeting upstairs looking at yet another iniquitous example of this Government's legislative proposals, namely, the Bill on the Common Market.
I turn briefly to one or two of the points raised in the torrential outpourings of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who said, amongst other things, that the Industrial Relations Act was not politically motivated. He could not possibly have made any such suggestion had he been here when the House was debating that Measure and going through the Guillotines in Committee and on Report——
Mr. Winterton rose——
Mr. Walker: No. I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman should not make provocative comments if he is not prepared to listen to a reply to them, and he was not prepared to give way to me.
As I understood the hon. Member for Macclesfield, he said that the Act had already started to improve industrial relations. That statement is an extraordinary defiance of the facts. I asked the right hon. Gentleman's Department for the up-to-date figures in a Written Question which I tabled several days ago. I am still waiting for them. I understand that about 30 million working days have been lost since this Government came to office 19 months ago. That is far in excess of the total number of days lost throughout the whole period of the Labour Government. I understand also that 2½million of those days were lost as a direct consequence of the introduction of the Industrial Relations Bill, and 2½million working days is about the level that we had as a result of all industrial disputes in 1966, 1967 and 1968.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) made it clear that we intended to divide the House tonight because the Code of Practice was not merely an extension or projection of the Industrial Relations Act but was an integral part of it. Any doubt that there might have been about the validity of that statement was swept

565
away by assertions from the benches opposite that it was an integral part. The hon. Member for Macclesfield said it, as did the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). We are discussing what is not merely an extension but an integral part of the Industrial Relations Act.
I turn now to the Code, and I hope that I do not displease my hon. Friends by acknowledging at the outset that the revised form of the Code is an improvement on the Consultative Document. It has been improved in tone and form, and some of the changes, especially some of the changes of substance, reflect arguments which were deployed from both sides of the House in our earlier debate. It was reassuring to know that on that occasion at least the Secretary of State not only listened but presumably considered our arguments sufficiently constructive and useful to respond to them.
I used the phrase "revised form" and not "final form" because, notwithstanding the fact that we shall support our Amendment in the Division Lobby, and notwithstanding the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), I recognise that the Code will come into operation, and I hope that the Secretary of State will see it as an evolving guide rather than as a permanently fixed set of ground rules. The document itself says that industrial relations can never be static. I hope that that axiom means that the right hon. Gentleman will not only see the need for regular revision in response to changing circumstances but will also be prepared to respond to arguments which have been deployed today and will be deployed in the future.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) suggested that the Code had already been overtaken by events. In some respects, it seems that its authors have failed to recognise the significant changes which are taking place in the pattern of industrial relations and behaviour. We have the U.C.S., the Fisher-Bendix and the Plessey situations representing a new pattern in the wielding of industrial power. The Code completely fails to recognise and respond to this new pattern.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made the valid point that there has been a
566
shift of power within industry and within the structure of the trade union movement. Again, the Code, as the Act, seems to have misunderstood or failed to recognise it. I entirely share the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that, instead of trying, Canute-like, to push back the tide—an impossible task—the sensible thing is to recognise and respond to the change which is taking place and to say: "All right, power and responsibility should go hand in hand. If power has shifted, we must put responsibility where the power lies instead of having the two divorced". This means giving workers a greater say and responsibility—and by implication, irresponsibility—in areas where presumably they are exercising power today. However, there is no word about this in the Consultative Document.
Throughout the debate attention has been drawn time and again to where, even on the basis of past patterns, one would expect a rôle to be allocated to trade unions and their representatives, but the document denies it, let alone recognises the changing pattern which I have been describing.
It has always seemed extraordinary to me and to many others that ordinary working people in the democratic political process of this country can be given the opportunity to exercise their talents and responsibility—for example, in running great municipal corporations with turnovers of many millions of pounds per year, and do it with great competence and skill—but are denied the slightest opportunity of doing the same kind of thing in their everyday working lives. I refer to people who, for years, as shop stewards, workers' representatives and intelligent workers, have been denied the opportunity by employers and managements of exercising any significant rôle in decision-making in their industries, but have overnight been transformed into general secretaries and senior officials of great trade unions, which are today great businesses with turnovers of millions of pounds per year, looking after the affairs of a million or so members, investing enormous sums of money on their behalf, and doing all these things with great confidence. Yet they are deemed not to be capable of doing that within industry. This is the kind of thing which workers are recognising and

567
in response to which are demanding a changing rôle, but which the document fails to recognise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) made an important point which was often repeated in our first debate but which will bear repetition again. It was that had the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Code of Practice before starting to frame his Bill, which is now the Act, it might have rendered the Act completely unnecessary. We think that the Act is unnecessary anyhow. However, I think that he would certainly have found a more generous and sympathetic response from the trade union movement than is possible in the present atmosphere which he has poisoned by his Act.
I do not mean that the atmosphere is poisoned only by the Industrial Relations Act. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North, in what I thought was a well-argued and persuasive opening speech for the Opposition, industrial relations are not a neatly definable and insulated area of industrial and commercial activity quarantined from other changes in society. It is the general pattern of the Government's behaviour and decisions which has inflamed and incensed working people, and their anger and resentment became additional irritants in industrial disputes. The Government's policy has added fuel to the flames in every dispute.
One of my hon. Friends said that miners were not talking about the Code of Practice at their meetings. I come from a coal mining area and I meet miners involved in this dispute. I can tell the Minister that at their meetings and discussions they do not talk merely about the attitude of the Board and about the Government's norm. Part of their anger is a direct consequence of the Government's policy on such matters as school meals, school milk, council house rents, and so on. All those issues are debated at their meetings.
I must tell the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) that militancy is not a matter of personalities. I hope that I do not misrepresent the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, because I appreciate his contributions to our debates, when I say that he seemed to echo what his hon. Friend the Member
568
for Basingstoke said, that it is the militants on the shop floor, the personalities, who are often responsible for strikes. He did not put it in quite that way, but I do not think I am unfairly paraphrasing his remarks. During a lifetime connected with industrial relations in one way or another, I have never met one of those dynamic, magnetic personalities who can bring thousands of people out on strike just like that.
Mr. Swain: What about Ted Heath? He has managed it. He has got the miners out on strike.
Mr. Walker: There are exceptions which prove every rule, and if my hon. Friend wishes to insist that that exception proves my rule, I shall not argue with him.
My case—and it is a serious one—is that an industrial militant can operate only if there are conditions which enable him to exercise his militancy. He can put the spark to the gunpowder, but the gunpowder has to be there, and it is very often provided by maladroit management, by wrong decisions by management, and by wrong decisions by Governments, too.
References have been made to the fact that since our last debate on this subject the T.U.C. has published its own well-written and well-informed guide for industrial negotiators. It is the latest of a series of documents published by the T.U.C. on various aspects of industrial relations. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam gibing at the document for referring to the fact, which I should have thought was known to every hon. Member, that the private sector is concerned with profit-making. I should have thought that that was so obvious as to rate with the clichés in the Code which have been criticised. We are usually accused of regarding profit as a dirty word. That opinion seems now to have seeped through to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I want to draw attention to the T.U.C.'s document because in recent months hon. Gentlemen opposite have abused and reviled the T.U.C. in what I regard as an unprecedented manner. The fact is, however, that while all the abuse has been flowing from the benches opposite the T.U.C. has been beavering away behind the scenes to make its own significant, constructive contribution to improving

569
industrial relations. I can only hope—but I have not seen any evidence—that the C.B.I. is making similar efforts.
But it is not only in the back room that the T.U.C. has been working to diminish strikes. Time and again, Vic Feather and his team have intervened to resolve industrial disputes sometimes with success and sometimes without. At least he has tried. It was he who took the initiative in the present coal mining dispute while the Secretary of State sat on the sidelines wringing his hands. But not a word of credit has been accorded in the last few months to Mr. Feather and the T.U.C. from the right hon. Gentleman and the Government. All we have had is denigration of them.
Mr. R. Carr: That is not true.
Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman says that is not true. I am prepared to give way to him now to hear him give credit to the efforts of Mr. Feather.
Mr. Carr: If the hon. Gentleman has not read the speech I made in Bolton only last Friday, which is publicly available, I refer him to that. Incidentally, would he quote one example of the denigration he complains about?
Mr. Walker: It is an old Parliamentary trick to be asked to quote offhand. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will produce them for him—[Interruption.] I am sure that it is not questioned by my hon. Friends, who regularly participate in these debates, unlike some hon. Members opposite who have just drifted in to cheer the right hon. Gentleman.
Time and again, the T.U.C. has been abused. If the right hon. Gentleman will study the Report of our proceedings tomorrow he will see that some of his hon. Friends said other than kind things about the T.U.C. while the right hon. Gentleman was absent from the debate.
Mr. Winterton: Putting words into my mouth now.
Mr. Walker: The T.U.C. document runs parallel to the Government's Code and it has been said that there is evidence that the Government have learned a thing or two from the T.U.C. guide, all of which suggests that one can have a dialogue in ways other than sitting at a
570
table. I will come in a moment to the crucial differences between the two.
The Secretary of State said that paragraph 25 covers the question of a trade union's rôle in recruitment, selection and training policies. I accept his intention, but I must beg him to look again at this to see whether it is not possible, so as to place the matter beyond any doubt, to put in the next reprint, in each of those paragraphs, a recognition of the retie that the trade union representatives should have.
I accept what the Secretary of State said about the need to wait for the C.I.R. report on the disclosure of information, but, as he understood from an intervention, we are getting impatient now. We want the job done thoroughly, but it has been a long time.
I regret that the Secretary of State has not responded to my urging in our last debate to stiffen up the section dealing with working conditions. A great improvement would be an addition to require employees to use protective equipment and clothing, and management to provide it where necessary. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not assume that this is being done now, because that would be a long way from the truth.
The document should establish that, without mutual agreement, piece work rates in the engineering industry will continue to be a source of industrial friction and dispute and a likely cause of strikes. What the right hon. Gentleman has put in about joint negotiation is not enough. Out of equity, the unions insist that there must be mutual agreement.
There is, too, the question of the status quo. The right hon. Gentleman has taken some note of our representations but we shall continue to press this and we shall not accept the document as equitable until it is modified. There are fundamental differences in approach. We find on page 2 of the right hon. Gentleman's document the unexceptionable statement which has already been quoted in the debate:
"Good industrial relations are a joint responsibility."
The T.U.C. document says in addition—and this is the difference not merely between the Government and the T.U.C. but between two sides of the House—that each side must recognise the other's

571
right to be present on equal and independent terms.
Time does not permit me to pursue the other points and doubts which I have about the Code. I cannot help contrasting the practical and conciliatory style of the Code with the legalistic, authoritarianism of the Act. We cannot avoid comparisons between the emollient speeches we get now from the Government Benches and the strident and abrasive style that prevailed in the immediate pre-election period, which smacked so strongly of union-bashing. The contrast seems to reflect two quite different philosophies.
Looking back over this long Parliamentary struggle on industrial relations and straining an ear for echoes from the past is rather like listening to two voices, each speaking with a different tongue We know better. The Dr. Jekyll who produced the Code is the Mr. Hyde who produced the Act, and it is the Mr. Hyde against whom we shall vote tonight.
9.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): May I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) on his new appointment and his return to this area of debate? We can definitely call it an elevation. We are pleased that he has joined us because we have a high regard for him and we look forward to our parliamentary association. Assuming he is the sort of person I think he is, I should have thought he had very little heart in the sort of speech he was detailed to make today. I do not believe that he relished his duty of leading the flock into the Lobby against this Code. It is a very uphill task for a self-respecting politician.
This Code has been well received by all responsible opinion, and I am talking now not just about the Press and the media but about informed opinion among people working in this area. It has been recognised that it is a practical, unique document—for the best reasons. It is an historic document because it will go down as a milestone in our industrial history.
Mr. Robert Hughes: A millstone.
Mr. Bryan: Where does it fit into the strategy of our employment policy? When my right hon. Friend took office in 1970 he had the objective of reviewing, improving and radically reforming industrial relations and manpower policy. The first stage was the Industrial Relations Act now coming into force. Then we had the Code of Practice, not dependent on the Act but complementary to it. A week or two ago we had the paper on the employment services, "People and Jobs". Hon. Members can easily see that this is complementary to the Code. Yesterday we presented our training paper which is again complementary to the Code. Shortly we will have the consultative document on the redundancy payments scheme and, again, this all fits in with the general picture. We are, therefore, well on the way to the most radical reform of manpower services that this country has ever seen.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North deplored what he described as the change in climate since we last debated this subject and said that politics were today of quite a different sort compared with the days when we had so much common ground. In his view one could not separate the Code from the Act, and for that reason the Code would become ineffective. It was tarnished with the stain of the Act, he said.
When the right hon. Gentleman said that we were going off to a never-never land I could not help thinking that he was the one who was living in a never-never land. He is out of touch. I swear that it is true that the Code is being effective now. [Interruption.] Hundreds of firms have gone through the Consultative Document and have compared it with their own practice. This is exactly what we want them to do. We want them to think about their practices and improve them.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North said the way in which we were intending to use the Act sparingly was terrible. The truth is that the more effective the Code becomes, the more sparing we will be—or, rather, industry will be—in the use of the Act. It will not he necessary if we have such an improvement in industrial relations.
It is clear that the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman takes has nothing

573
to do with the Code. His spurning of it will leave him out on a limb, because it will not be long before this Code becomes established in the industrial relations world and is regarded as the standard setter and reference book.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that a lead was necessary and that we were not giving one. But that is exactly what we are doing now. Have any other Government produced a document which has proved as influential as this one is proving? [Interruption.] Although the right hon. Gentleman talks about the traditional rôle of the Government as peacemaker, we are going beyond that normal rôle. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we have done more by way of conciliation than our predecessors did, and this Code once again shows our leadership.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North referred to the question of the responsibility of employers to encourage union membership and pointed out that a change in wording had been made. He wondered whether that had occurred simply for legal reasons, and the answer is "Yes".
The Consultative Document contained two references to the encouragement of trade union membership. Paragraphs A6c and D14 said that management should encourage employees to join recognised unions and play an active part—[Interruption.]—but a number of legal commentators questioned whether a specific injunction to employees was consistent with Section 5 of the Act.
It was argued that while that Section made it possible for an employer to encourage membership of a registered trade union without infringing the right not to belong, it did not provide similar cover for an employer encouraging membership of an unregistered union. This is, therefore, a change made for technical reasons and it has nothing to do with losing any strength that was meant to be in the document.
Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister unaware that what he has just said helps to make our case? He said that the Government wanted in the original draft of the Code to say that managers should encourage employees to join unions and be active in them, but that, because of what is said in Section 5 of the Act, something
574
much weaker and more ambiguous must now be said.
Mr. Bryan: Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman considers it to be weak is a matter for debate. It is fairly strongly put as it is now.
I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) regarding the position of professional employees. This is a very difficult question, raising the conflict between professional employees and their obligation to the profession and that owed to the union or the employer. It has been very difficult to find criteria to meet this difficult situation. So we have arrived at paragraph 23, which states:
"Professional associations, employers and trade unions should co-operate in preventing and resolving any conflicts which may occur between obligations arising from membership of a profession and those which the professional employee owes to his employer and to his trade union if he belongs to one."
We considered that paragraph A17 in the Consultative Document was too broad and that the Code in its present form strikes a reasonable balance between the need to protect the special obligations of professional employees and the need to ensure that collective bargaining arrangements which are working well are not damaged. If the paragraphs prove inadequate and if there is concrete evidence of serious problems affecting members of the legal or any other profession, which call for amendments of the Code, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to look sympathetically at any proposals which may be put to him.
The Code will be revised from time to time. This can be done relatively easily, but it would be sensible to see, first, how the present provisions work out in practice.
The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), whose views on this subject I greatly respect as a rule, seemed disturbed. He said that we presumed in the Code to concede many things which he and his friends had won a long time ago. That is exactly the point. These rights have been won in various places. But that is not the general situation. It proves our point. The whole object of the Code is to bring up the general standard to the standards of the

575
best practice in the country. That is what we are aiming to do.
The right hon. Gentleman ended his speech by saying that when the Labour Party took office it would deal fairly with all these issues. This was exactly what it tried to do in 1970, and this split the party to such an extent that it was probably what lost it the General Election. That was not a very powerful argument.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) asked about courses for supervisors. The course to which ha was probably referring were organised by the industrial relations officers from the Department, usually with technical colleges. Most technical colleges are well able to put on such courses themselves. The Department still runs training-within-industry courses which are very much in demand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) asked about the charge we were making for the booklet. It has to be stoutly made because we expect it to be much used as a reference work. I do not think that it is expensive. My hon. Friend also asked whether there was a charge for the Highway Code. The answer is, "Yes". He also asked about the procedure with regard to disclosure. The procedure and timetable are that the publication of the C.I.R. report will be in the spring; a consultative document will be prepared in the light of the C.I.R. report; after a period of a few months for consultation, the Secretary of State will prepare a draft proposal; he will then lay his draft revision before both Houses; the draft will then be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) made exactly the same speech as he made in the debate on the Consultative Document, though it was probably less effective than last time because, owing to his remarks, we did a certain amount of polishing up. What the hon. and learned Gentleman really wants, I think, is another Industrial Relations Bill.
Several Members raised the question of the effect of legislation, and in particular of the Code, on strikes. They
576
asked why the Code had not cured strikes. The question shows a complete misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the Code. As has been said a dozen times or more in the House, its whole objective is preventative and not curative. The most biased person would surely admit that if the standards laid down by the Code became the standards for all British industry we should have fewer strikes. The whole object is to improve the climate in which industrial relations are conducted.
Although my right hon. Friend answered it earlier extremely effectively, we were chided on the question of interfering with collective bargaining. I can only repeat once again that the Opposition are not in a position to make those accusations. When they introduced the statutory wages policy, they resorted to steps which this Government will certainly never take.
The last time we discussed the subject it was on a Motion to take note of the Consultative Document. The Opposition would not even listen then, and voted against the Motion. Since then, several things have occurred. First, the Code has proved a decisive success. Secondly, the trade unions have published their code, thus giving the opinion that a code is worth having and should be considered. The purpose of their code does not correspond exactly with that of our Code of Practice. The T.U.C. guide, which relates mainly to negotiating machinery and agreements, is designed primarily for trade unions, although it includes a short section on management and employers' associations. The Code of Practice covers the whole field of industrial relations, and is directed at management, unions, employers' associations and individual employees. But—and the Opposition appeared somewhat embarrassed when we told them this—there is a good deal of common ground between us in terms both of subject matter and policy. Both emphasise the importance of collective bargaining and the need to strengthen and develop it. Therefore, our objectives are pretty well the same.
Many Labour hon. Members have not been here all day. I do not blame them for that, but for that reason they may not know the ground on which they are being asked to vote. May I therefore

577
tell them what they are asked to vote against. They will be voting against a code of practice that starts with the words:
"The purpose of the Code is to give practical guidance for promoting good industrial relations."
They will be voting against a code which on its opening page states two main themes underlying it, the vital rôle of collective bargaining and the importance
of good human relations. They will be voting against a code which is already achieving its objectives. The Opposition are alone in resenting its success, for that is all that a vote against the Code can mean.
Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 311.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Code of Industrial Relations Practice, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I beg to move,
That the Industrial Relations Act 1971 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1522), dated 15th September 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd September, in the last Session of Parliament, be withdrawn.
I understand that, for the convenience of the House we shall discuss at the same time the following Motion:
That the Industrial Relations Act 1971 (Commencement No. 2) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1682), dated 15th October 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be withdrawn.
Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is quite impossible for those of us who are waiting on the words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to hear what he is saying. Will you ask the House to be quiet?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It is impossible to hear. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so as quietly as possible.
Mr. Heffer: I understand that, for the convenience of the House, we shall be taking the two orders together and at the end of the debate have one vote on both orders.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is asking if it would be for the convenience of the House to take both orders together. I think this would be for the convenience of the House. It will then be in order to have one vote only.
Mr. Heffer: That is what we should like. We wish hon. Members to get away
584
as early as possible and also to register opposition to the orders.
We have just been debating the Code of Industrial Relations Practice. The Opposition have made it clear that they reject the Code, not because they are against the Code but because it is tied to the Industrial Relations Act and they believe that the Code is irrelevant in dealing with industrial relations problems. The Act makes it plain that whenever a complaint is referred to the courts the Code can be used. These orders are comprehensive, as was the Commencement No. 2 Order which we discussed on Monday.
On that occasion I was criticised by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) for not dealing with every section mentioned in the order. Having worked it out, I found that if I had spoken for one minute on every section under discussion I should have spoken for one hour. In a debate which lasted only one and a half hours, I should have been extremely unpopular had I spoken at that length. I am sorry the hon. Member for Basingstoke is not here, because I shall disappoint him again. I have no intention of dealing with every section on this occasion—and I apologise to the House in advance for not doing so—but I intend to concentrate on one or two particular points.
The first order deals with the Code. It is interesting that the Code could have been brought in at any time provided that it had been before both Houses. It also brings in the general principles of Section 1 and deals with the whole question of registration.
I see that the hon. Member for Basingstoke has just come into the Chamber, and I had better tell him that I have no intention of dealing with the 45 sections of the Act, the four subsections, the three parts of Schedule 3, the whole of Schedule 5, the whole of Schedule 4, part of Schedule 8, and Schedule 9, which are all included in these orders. I am dealing only with Commencement Order No. 2. If I were also to talk on Commencement Order No. 1 I should have to go into even greater detail.
The order brings in the measures related to registration. The question of registration is of fundamental importance

585
to the trade union movement. I emphasise that the trade union movement is against registration under the Act because it is a direct interference with the internal affairs of the trade union movement. It is not opposed to the principle of registration since, after all, most unions affiliated to this T.U.C. had in the past been registered voluntarily. They have no objection to continuation of registration on a voluntary basis. What the trade unions object to is registration under the Act on the basis that, if they are not registered, they lose certain so-called rights and privileges.
We are now experiencing a measure of blackmail by the Government to force the trade unions into registration. The T.U.C. is not prepared to let that happen. This has caused, and is causing, a certain amount of difficulty to the trade union movement and I believe that this is a deliberate action by the Government. They want to bring about this sort a divisiveness within the trade union movement.
The facts are that the Trades Union Congress held a special meeting on 18th March last year at which it discussed the effects of the Act. One decision taken was that no affiliated trade union should register under the Act. When the T.U.C. discussed this question in October it reaffirmed the decision of the special congress, and went further and decided that it may well take action against any trade union which decides to register under the Act. It is not a question of democratic decisions taken by the T.U.C. This applies to affiliated unions, and the Government have deliberately endeavoured to set one trade union against another—this is what they have attempted to do and are doing in this Act. [Interruption.] Of course, hon. Members opposite do not want to accept this as an argument. Perhaps they will tell me why the trade unions are so passionately against registration under the Act.
Even the unions which have decided to register have explained that they are registering because, first, they do not wish to lose a certain amount of money which they will otherwise have to pay in taxation, and, second, they wish to protect themselves vis-à-vis the professional organisations which are being put on a special register. They are not doing it because they want to register under the
586
Act. They are doing it because they are forced into this position as a result of Government action. That is what is happening in the trade union movement.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are loving it. They want to see the trade unions in conflict with one another—[Hon. Members: "Nonsense."] They shout "Nonsense". They try to kid the public that they are friends of the trade unions. if they were friends of the trade unions, they would ask their right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to withdraw this Act and get down to real discussions with the T.U.C. of the issues facing the country at present.
The right hon. Gentleman has changed his tune in the past few weeks. Recently, he said that he would be pleased to have discussions with the T.U.C. about problems like unemployment, industrial training, and similar matters. If the right hon. Gentleman is really serious, I suggest that he ought to take away the one Act which antagonises the trade union movement more than any Measure passed by any Government in the last 50 years.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester): What about "In Place of Strife"?
Mr. Heffer: That was taken away. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is pushing at an open door.
This Act does not help industrial relations. The other evening, I pointed out that the one occasion on which the Act could have been used it had not been used because it is an irrevelancy to the real needs of the situation and because, if it were used, it would exacerbate an already inflamed situation in industrial relations.
Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is repeating the canard he used the other night. He knows that the Act specifies that the Secretary of State must be convinced, before seeking a cooling-off period, that during it he would be likely to be successful in bringing the parties together. That point has not yet been reached. It is a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State. In not applying the provision for a cooling-off period at this stage, my right hon. Friend is merely observing the terms of the Act. It is ridiculous for the hon.

587
Gentleman to attack the Act and then to ask the Minister to observe it.
Mr. Heffer: There are three grounds on which the Secretary of State can intervene if he desires. Any one of those three grounds has existed for a period already. I am not arguing at this stage that I wish to see the provision implemented. Certainly I do not. If it is used, there will be even more trouble than there is now. It is not used because it is irrelevant to the needs of solving the genuine issues in industrial relations. The Code, which comes into operation as a result of these two orders, solves none of the issues in industrial relations. It does not go one step towards solving any problems on the shop floor or in industry as a whole. That is the argument which we put forward. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to accept my argument or the arguments of the trade union movement.
We have heard today that everybody has been consulted and that all kinds of information has been flowing back. But the one body which is deeply involved is so disgusted with the introduction of the Act that it is not prepared to talk about anything relating to it. That is the situation. So how can there have been real consultation with all the people directly involved in industrial relations?
The Secretary of State will learn very clearly that most trade unionists and unions will refuse to re-register. Therefore, the Government must live with that fact. A trade union, under the Act—[Interruption.] I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. The definition of a trade union is changed under the part of the Act which is brought into force with the passing of the order. From now on there will be two types of organisations: an organisation of workers which is not registered and an organisation of workers which is registered. A trade union will be a trade union only if it is registered.
That point was underlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) in his opening speech in the debate on the Code of Practice. The Code talks about welcoming or encouraging people to join registered, not unregistered, trade unions. People are not being en-
588
couraged to join organisations of workers which do not accept registration.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they are the friends of the trade unionists and the unions and that they are really helping the T.U.C. But they have revealed the true position in the Act and in the Code which has been placed before us today.
I want to turn to the position of the T.U.C. concerning the National Industrial Relations Court, because that is also part of the order. The N.I.R.C. is set up under it and its members are involved.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Hone): The powers to set it up.
Mr. Heffer: Yes. The order provides the power to set it up.
What is the advice of the T.U.C.? The Minister referred to the T.U.C. handbook on the Industrial Relations Act. He even suggested at one stage—we had it again today—that the T.U.C. is apparently bringing out pamphlets of this kind because there is some kind of secret dialogue going on between the Government and the T.U.C.
This handbook explains how trade unions can avoid the provisions of the Act and, if they cannot, what they should do to overcome the difficulties in which they may find themselves as a result of the Act.
This is the T.U.C.'s advice about the N.I.R.C.:
"Because of the trade union movement's fundamental objection to the Act"—
I do not recall that part being quoted by the right hon. Gentleman—
"Congress decided that trade unionists should be advised not to serve on the N.I.R.C. It also decided that unions shall not co-operate with the N.I.R.C. and should use all lawful means to persuade employers not to apply to the N.I.R.C. for a legally binding order. Unions should not therefore seek to initiate references to the N.I.R.C. and should not co-operate with it. However the situation may arise in which a union, despite doing everything possible, is unable to avoid a reference to the N.I.R.C. by an employer or a staff association. In these circumstances, and where the union considers that its interests may be seriously affected by the proceedings, it should seek the advice of the T.U.C. about whether and to what extent representations necessary to protect the interests of the union and its members should be made to the N.I.R.C."

589
In other words, they do not wish to co-operate, they have no intention of co-operating, but if an employer or another association to which they have no affiliation makes a reference to the N.I.R.C., they then have to do something to protect their own members. Despite that we are told that there is no element of blackmail against the trade unions. If the Act is used at all by the trade unions it will be used only because they are forced into the position of having to use an instrument which they do not wish to use and in which they have no faith.
Those are some of the reasons why we are opposed to these orders. I cannot deal with all the aspects of registration, with the fact that the guiding principles for organisations of workers which affect the rules of unions also come into the matter as a result of these orders, and so on. Both orders have been in force for some time. Commencement No. 1 Order came into effect on 1st October, and Commencement No. 2 Order came into effect on 1st November, but the only opportunity that we have had to debate them is tonight in this negative form.
I could elaborate on many other aspects of the Act, but it has all been said before. We went over this ground as much as we were allowed to. Because of the guillotine, whole Sections of the Act were not debated in the House. The trade unions are totally opposed to this Measure. If any unions register, it will be because they have been forced into the position of having to do so. They do not want to register. This is a divisive Act. It operates against good industrial relations, and for that reason my right hon. and hon. Friends will once again vote against it tonight by voting against these orders.
One matter was not brought out by the hon. Gentleman in his quotations from the T.U.C. handbook. One decision of the special conference at which unions were called upon not to register was that the Act should be repealed. The Labour Party on its return to government will repeal this Act. In its place we shall bring in decent, suitable legislation that will protect the trade unions. It will protect unions against the type of employers that they are faced with at present, who are refusing, as in the coal
590
mining industry, to give them decent wages and conditions—[Interruption.] The point about that industry is that the strike could be settled tomorrow if it were not for the Secretary of State, who refuses to do anything about it. It is basically his Government's policy which is continuing the strike by backing up the Coal Board's refusal to give the miners a few more shillings, which they deserve to have for the work they do.
10.41 p.m.
Mr. Tom King: With great respect to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), the first point at which he thought to sit down— his reference to the vote—was the moment he should have done so. After that, he went on to much less happy ground, first in his reference to the possible repeal of the Act, without any suggestion as to what might be put in its place. The party he represents—I know that he does not represent the policy that they held when they were the Government—do not provide a happy augury for the future.
There are so many measures in this Act which the hon. Gentleman has claimed to support, yet he has stood at that Box tonight and said that they would repeal it—without any hesitation and without adequate thought about what they would put in its place.
The hon. Gentleman's reference to the miners' strike, about which we have heard far too much already tonight, seemed to me perilously close to the bounds of order in a debate on the Code of Practice. The miners are not impressed by what he has said. They have said that they are striking against the loss of their relative position in the wages structure of the country, because they have been progressively losing ground over the past five, six or seven years. While I accept a measure of responsibility on this side, it ill becomes an hon. Member opposite to say that it is just a matter of shillings, and that it is all my right hon. Friend's fault. That is crocodile tears—
Mr. Heffer: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how many miners he knows, how many miners' meetings he has addressed, how many friends he has among the miners? For his information, I have addressed many miners' meetings—although not during this present dispute—and have been very well received.

591
I have many friends among the miners. The hon. Gentleman had better learn something about the miners before he starts talking about them.
Mr. King: Let the hon. Gentleman now answer me one question—were the miners satisfied with the wages they were receiving in June, 1970?
Mr. Heffer: Of course they were not.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman cannot rise and answer that question; he knows that what I am saying is a fact.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
Mr. King: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's great interest in this field, but I want to deal with the quite unjust remarks of his hon. Friend. I hope that I have now answered them clearly.
When the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) was speaking earlier—one welcomes his participation in these debates, in which a number of us have taken part, certainly over the last Session—I thought that it was a different singer but the same old song. Just now, listening to the hon. Member for Walton, I thought that it was the same old singer and the same old song——
Mr. Heffer: It is the same old Act.
Mr. King: We have been through this before. He rehashed all the old arguments, on registration in particular. But he made a rather unhappy analogy. The principal argument that he produced tonight against registration was that it involved an element of blackmail. This was not his principal argument during the passage of the Bill. Tonight, he denounced this as though it was a matter of over-riding objection. The hon. Gentleman went on, I thought unhappily, to say that because of T.U.C. and union objection to this system, consideration would be given to expelling any member who chose to register. It seemed strange for the hon. Gentleman to adduce an argument about blackmail and reply to it with another case of blackmail.
I do not want to cover much of the ground that we have already discussed at length, but I must refer to the hon. Gentleman's other argument in connec-
592
tion with registration when he described the rules of unions as a private matter that should not be subject to investigation by an outside registrar.
Mr. Heffer indicated assent.
Mr. King: But no argument has been produced to suggest that the registrar's interest in such rules would be other than a perfectly fair and reasonable one. It has been pointed out that the rules of some unions are less than totally acceptable and that there are unions whose standards are not as high as the majority or as high as the hon. Member for Walton would like to see. In other words, the hon. Gentleman argued on a point of principle and not on a point of application, because he could not substantiate the claim that the registrar's activities would work fundamentally against the unions.
We surely established throughout the passage of the Measure that this is not a purely private matter. It is not a question simply for the unions. The national and public interest comes into this; and if employers are to welcome union membership, then unions must recognise that while the Government and law of the country encourage union membership, that membership and its conduct carries with it a responsibility to the country.
The hon. Gentleman went on to criticise my right hon. Friend and said that we should repeal the Act, drop everything, and then we could have discussions. In other words, another element of blackmail was brought into the matter. [Interruption.] Imagine the hon. Member for Walton referring critically to industrial training in a week in which my right hon. Friend has announced the most massive increase in training provision in Britain. While the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are standing up talking, talking and talking still more, and then demanding that we withdraw and repeal everything, my right hon. Friend is acting. Thank heavens we have in office a Minister who is prepared to act in the interests of the nation.
Mr. Heffer: With over 1 million unemployed?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate began at 11.30 p.m. I understand that

593
the Solicitor-General will require about 12 minutes at the end in which to reply. I should like be able to call three hon. Members to speak from the back benches, but that will be possible only if they each speak for eight or nine minutes. Mr. Golding.
10.50 p.m.
Mr. John Golding: The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) will appreciate how difficult it is for me to express my thoughts on this subject in eight minutes, but on this occasion I will do so.
I am an assistant secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union. I am a permanent officer of one of our new organisations of workers. For many years I have argued very strongly in my union for some of the things contained in the Code. It is with regret that I have to say, in the context of these orders, that it is impossible for many of us who have spent so long arguing for productivity bargaining, rationalisation of the trade union movement and an up-dating of ideas, to pay the attention to the Code—which has many defects, and some virtues—which it deserves. The reason for that is that we are now devoting our time to finding ways around the legislation.
I have in my hand a document produced by my union. The document is devoted to the ways in which we can stay within the law but evade its provisions. We shall be spending much of our energies doing that. It is not in the interests of good industrial relations. Hon. Members opposite may laugh. I do not laugh about it because it is a very serious question about which hon. Members on both sides of the House should be concerned.
I am concerned because whereas in the past when I trained branch secretaries I would teach them always to try to reach agreements in the most amicable way, and I would train my members to try to retain unity and goodwill within the work force, I now have to teach them different lessons. The first lesson is that it appears to many of us that the only control that we can now have, according to the Act, over the non-trade unionist or over the trade unionist who has not obeyed our canons of trade union loyalty is the angry
594
silence. I do not want to spell it out, but it is regrettably true that in future we shall have to say to our members, "The law requires you to work with them but does not require you to speak with them beyond that which is necessary to do the job. You need no longer be friends. Employ the angry silence."
Another lesson that we shall be having to teach in our trade unionist schools is, "Under the Act you will always need a pretext for a strike, so always have in the pipeline some unresolved issue. Always top up the disputes procedure. Be ready." I speak as an official of a union which has struck on only one day in its long history. We shall have to have disputes at the ready in order to be able to strike, whether for sympathetic reasons, for instance, in support of the mineworkers, or otherwise. That is undesirable.
In conclusion, I raise two important practical points. The most important point is the effect on conciliation. As we see it, we shall have to tell our members never to speak in future to a conciliation officer. Already we are boycotting the Commission on Industrial Relations. But we shall have to go further than that. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) laughs, but this is a serious business. Because of the law as it stands, anything we say to conciliation officers of the Department of Employment can be quoted in the courts. Because of this, except for some minor exceptions regarding membership and unlawful dismissals, we shall have to tell our members, "If a Department of Employment conciliation officer comes near, do not talk to him, because he might be forced to give evidence against the union to a court which can award damages against the union." It is important for the Government to make absolutely clear that information given to conciliation officers is privileged. If they do not, they will not only have brought arbitration into disrepute but will have smashed their conciliation procedures.
Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will my hon. Friend allow me——
Mr. Golding: No, because I must make my next point, which is a practical one.

595
The other question many trade unionists are asking is about Section 65(5) of the Act, which says:
"The voting in any ballot of members of the organisation, or of a branch or section of the organisation, shall be kept secret."
How do the Government interpret that? Does it mean that in every branch and on every issue there must be a secret ballot? Is there to be no voting by voice or show of hands? More important, is there to be no voting by roll call at annual conference? If that is the case, how do the Government think we shall get decisions acceptable to our branches at certain times? Although delegates to conference are elected by secret ballot in branches, at the conferences the same procedure is adopted as in this House. Votes are recorded so that those to whom the delegates are responsible can see how they voted. It is our experience as full-time trade union officers that this procedure leads to more responsible voting. Yet the Government insist on the abolition of recorded votes at conference.
What I have said tonight illustrates the defect of the way in which the legislation was passed by the House. There are many practical difficulties in the implementation of the Act. What is worse is that those of us involved in industrial relations will have to spend far too much of our time in avoiding the consequences of the Act rather than getting on with the job of creating industrial peace.
10.59 p.m.
Mr. Robert Redmond: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) means that he must have a pretext for every strike. Does he mean that he often has a strike without a pretext? I am sure he did not mean that, but it appeared that he said it. HANSARD will no doubt show tomorrow.
The main tenor of the debate seems to be an objection by the Opposition to registration, as during the debates on the Bill, because it gives the registrar oversight of the rules of the unions, rather as the Privy Council has oversight over the rules of the Royal British Legion and other charitable organisations. Those of us who are members of the Royal British Legion think that that gives us a great protection, in that our rules are safeguarded against an awkward motion that
596
might go through at a meeting without the consent of the full membership.
These orders also properly establish the N.I.R.C. But it is quite clear that hon. Members on the Labour benches cannot understand the position of the court or of the Act in relation to the coal strike. This accentuates the difference between the Industrial Relations Act and the Labour Party's proposals in "In Place of Strife" from which I exempt the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer.)
Mr. David Mitchell: A little earlier the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton derided the Government for their failure to make use of this part of the Act in the case of the coal strike. I have the Act here. It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Walton has not noted Section 138 because he was an official spokesman for the Opposition during the proceedings on the Act. It says:
"Where it appears to the Secretary of State that…having regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute, it would be conducive to a settlement…"
he may, but only in those circumstances, make application to the court.
Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend has more or less said what I was going to say, perhaps in more formal words because he read it from the Act.
Mr. Heffer rose——
Mr. Redmond: I am sorry I am not giving way. I promised to be brief and much of my time has already gone. If the Secretary of State applied to the court now over the coal strike it is not certain that a ballot or a cooling-off period would be allowed. This is the great difference between our Act and "In Place of Strife," because under the Labour proposals the Secretary of State could have directed a cooling-off period or ballot.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Walton made his rather stupid point about union bashing and failure to consult with the T.U.C. It is apposite for me to say that today, not for the first time, I received a letter from a trade union official in my constituency thanking me for action I have been taking on behalf of his union. It would not be the first time if I were to write to a union thanking them for the help they had given me as a Member of Parliament and before

597
that in industry in dealing with industrial relations in my own company.
I have never believed in union bashing. I am not doing it now and I did not attempt it when I was tramping through the Lobby a year ago. I am sorry I have to go through the Lobby again tonight against people who think I am union bashing. Let us look at some of the other advantages which would come to a trade union under the No. 1 order. The provisions would limit the amount of damages that could be awarded against a registered trade union. A registered trade union, or someone acting with authority on its behalf is granted legal immunity provided the conditions for a strike are fulfilled. A registered trade union can enter into an approved closed shop agreement. A registered trade union is entitled to apply to the Industrial Court for recognition rights, and the employer will be obliged to disclose to officials of registered trade unions information necessary for the purposes of collective bargaining. Every worker has the right to belong to a registered trade union if he likes.
By voting against the order the Opposition are trying to deny the unions all these advantages, should they want them.
11.5 p.m.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Following the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), who kindly allowed the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) to make his speech for him, I want to take up, first, the position of the T.U.C. and, secondly, an example of the ways in which the Industrial Relations Act has worsened relationships in an industry. It is an interesting example which I am sure will be enlightening both to the Secretary of State and to the House.
The position of the T.U.C., as I interpret it, is basically that of mistrust. It is worth recalling that since June, 1970, we have had three major strikes. First, there was the dustmen's dispute, when an inquiry was headed by Mr. Jack Scamp. It is generally accepted that Mr. Scamp was fired by the Government because the results of his inquiry did not coincide with their wishes.
Then we had the Post Office dispute. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member
598
for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) that the Post Office unions had an industrial record second to none. His union has struck for only one day in its history. Mine, the Union of Post Office Workers, was forced to strike last year for the first time in its history. The Secretary of State was reluctant to intervene.
Now we have the miners' strike. I cannot go into detail because I am not an expert on the mining industry, but I do know that the country is crying out for the Secretary of State to intervene in order to get the dispute settled. Any hon. Member who thinks that that is not a fact is lost in cloud cuckoo land.
I come now to the way in which the Act worsens relationships. My union has a particular problem. Before the passing of the Act, the Post Office Board and the Union of Post Office Workers agreed that the union would be the sole agent for the grades it represented. Since the passing of the Act, a pirate organisation has sprung up—there is no other way of describing it. This new organisation has asked for recognition. The Post Office Board has to consider that request and is not in a position to refuse it because the Act does not allow it to do so. In all probability, the dispute will have to go to the Industrial Court for settlement. This is an instance where good industrial relations have been seriously damaged, not perhaps beyond repair but damaged to a great extent. by the Act.
I repeat what has often been said—that the Act was ill-conceived and ill-thought out in order to honour an election pledge. I concede that by the Act the Government have honoured an election pledge. I would comment on that issue only that there are certain other election pledges which the electors would prefer to see the Government honouring. However, the Government have gone overboard on industrial relations in no uncertain terms, with the result that in industries like the Post Office relationships which were once first class have been seriously disturbed by the provisions of the Act.
11.10 p.m.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: I want to supplement the eloquent and erudite remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing). When he

599
referred to the industrial relations in the Post Office Corporation he was in fact illustrating the hazards involved in article 2 of the order dealing with the coming into force of the provisions of the Act. I want to draw attention to Section 45 of the Act dealing with recognition. The danger I see is that this might give rise to a "Blackleg's Charter" if the Industrial Court takes decisions in the atmosphere following an industrial dispute.
Hon. Members will recall that we had a major industrial dispute in the Post Office last year in the course of which there were those in the minority who did not accept the decisions of the majority. If the Industrial Court makes rushed decisions in the aftermath of the industrial dispute it will give encouragement, sustenance and recognition to those elements who were in the minority and who seek to give their allegiance to an alien association seeking recognition.
I do not believe the Government intend this, but if the court does not take account of the history of good industrial relations and industrial harmony in such industries as the Post Office we might see the emergence of what many will regard as a "Blackleg's Charter."
It is understandable that each side will take up prepared positions in the debate. I hope that the Government will not remain impervious to the difficulties which can arise and could lead to industrial conflict.
11.14 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris)——
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Openshaw.
The Solicitor-General: I apologise. Mr. Morris: It is a family conspiracy.
The Solicitor-General: I apologise to the House and to the family. The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) raised the situation of a hypothetical dispute in the Post Office, taking up an example given by his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing). He also mentioned the coal industry dispute. Both of them suggested, and particularly the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs, that my right hon. Friend was
600
standing apart and aside from the situation in the coal industry. It is not for me, plainly, holding my position, to respond on the broader issues, save only to say that of course people are crying out, as the hon. Member said, for some way of breaking this deadlock because we are all in this nation confronted with a situation which cannot do good to anyone.
It is all very well for hon. Members to talk from the benches opposite about pledges by the Government, but there are also pledges about containing prices and squaring that circle facing us and many other Governments since the war, in order to secure price stability. My right hon. Friend has to bear in mind this dual function. While people are crying out for a resolution of the dispute in the coal industry, so they are also crying out to the Government for progress towards achieving a balance of prosperity and price stability. I hope one can consider these two orders and the Act in that kind of mood.
The second order deals with the establishment of the C.I.R. on a statutory basis, and this gives me the opportunity of pointing out to the hon. Member for Openshaw that he was in error in suggesting that the dispute in the postal industry between the telephonists' organisation and the U.P.W. will not be resolved if it comes to be handled through the procedures of the Act by the Industrial Court. It will not be the subject of a rash or rushed decision by the Court, but will be referred through the court to the statutorily established Commission for Industrial Relations and is a subject essentially for voluntary treatment, as the Chairman of the C.I.R., Mr. Neal, has emphasised.
The approach of the C.I.R. on this new basis will still be a problem-solving one and the Court will only underpin at the end of the road any solution which the C.I.R. will recommend. In suggesting that the Act is giving rise to the problems the hon. Member foreshadowed in the Post Office, the hon. Member is deceiving himself. The problem, whether or not the challenging organisations are under the same name, has been for many years festering and running on. This has given rise to trouble.
I do not suggest that the Act's solution will necessarily cause the problems to melt away, but they will be sensitive,

601
sophisticated solutions undertaken by the C.I.R. on the basis of a voluntary conciliatory approach.
Mr. Ewing: The problems have not been there for many years, because the Post Office Board and the U.P.W. came to an agreement that the U.P.W. would be the sole agency for representing the postal grades in the Post Office. The Post Office Board never recognised the old National Guild of Telephonists, but now that the Act is in force probably—and I say this reservedly—they will be forced to recognise the new pirate organisation.
The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member no doubt knows more about the history of this than I, but the guild was recognised by the pre-corporation organisation of the Post Office. The situation changed when it was made a public corporation but that did not cause the membership of that guild to melt away, nor the issue to disappear. The issue continued to run on. My only point is that it will not be a rush decision by the court but it will be considered by the C.I.R. It is an illustration of the kind of problems the C.I.R. will solve and the way in which it will solve them.
It is a tragedy that, because of the continued unwillingness of the trade union movement to co-operate with these organisations, the C.I.R. solution proposed last month to the Engelhard Industries recognition claim by the A.U.E.W. has not been taken up although there was a reference by my right hon. Friend to the C.I.R. and the C.I.R. awarded union recognition. So willing has it been to forgo the advantages of the Act and its procedure that the union has not taken this up. The fact that the hon. Member, with his long experience of this matter, still takes that rather jaded short-term view is a matter for regret, but I will come back to it in a more general context in a moment.
I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) of his anxiety about speaking to a conciliation officer and the suggestion that this will never take place in future. If he will focus his attention on Section 146(6) of the Act and look at that alone he may be led to the conclusion that it applies in that situation
602
only. But the problem, as he may not know, was considered by the President of the National Industrial Relations Court at its first sitting on 1st December. He said that fears had been expressed that the court would require conciliation officers and the Department of Employment or the C.I.R. to reveal the content of confidential discussions into which the parties had entered bona fide with a view to a settlement. Such fears are completely without foundation. He referred to the fact that communications to statutory conciliation officers are protected by Section 146(6) and went on:
"…the courts have for many years recognised that the public interest requires respect for the confidentiality of such discussions whether directly between the parties or with independent third parties. This Court will pursue the same policy."
That is the statement made by the President of the Court and it is consistent with the way the Court approaches confidential exchanges between parties to litigation, whether in this context or any other.
Mr. Golding: I think the Solicitor-General will know that what he was referring to were designated conciliation officers, persons appointed by the Secretary of State under that Section. Will he make it clear that what the President said will apply equally to other conciliation officers? That is the main point at issue between us.
The Solicitor-General: That was the point which the President was making clear. He pointed out that Section 146(6) applied to designated conciliation officers, but he was saying this in quite general terms to allay anxiety. There is no need to allay anxiety in the context of Section 146(6): it is there on the face of it. This is general. Discussions between people intervening in matrimonial or other disputes would not be the subject of enforced disclosure.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme also referred to secret ballots under Section 65. That provision applies to secret ballots conducted by voting on ballot papers and would not be applied in a wider context.
Coming back to the more general points, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) pointed out, the other provision in these two orders is that which in general terms provides

603
for the registration of trade unions. I want only to say about this well-worn argument that registration gives trade unions the opportunity of taking advantage of the remedies and procedures provided by the Act. Non-registration does not enable them to avoid responsibilities which are required of them, for example, under Section 65 in respect of the guiding principles applied to trade unions. It could enable them to avoid supervision of their rule books to the very limited extent, if at all, that any changes might be required on registration. To come back to the central point, this is not akin to a licence from the State to operate.
This does not involve the argument that trade unions by registration under the Act become creatures of the State. The time must surely come—and I very much hope it will come—when trade unions will see the pointlessness of empty gestures of sovereignty. It has been the law for decades for organisations—from friendly societies to limited companies, from school playgroups to riding schools and cat boarding establishments—to require registration before taking part in their activities. How in principle can it be wrong for trade unions to be subjected to guiding principles, not malevolent, in this kind of way in pursuance of the interests of their members and of society as a whole? This is the argument that must at the end of the day prevail.
The hon. Member for Walton approached this with the familiar verisimilitude of passion with which he has discussed this matter on many previous occasions. I take up one phrase of his. Can he tell me, or for that matter my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, why at rock bottom, or why in any particular, trade unions are so passionately opposed to registration?
Mr. J. D. Concannon: Compulsory registration.
The Solicitor-General: No, the option remains. By opting to register they secure many advantages. [Interruption.] That is a debating point. It is not illegitimate in this House to make debating points, but that is not a very good one. It cannot be in the interests of this country, of this House, or of the trade union move-
604
ment for this antipathy—this "angry silence", to borrow one hon. Member's phrase—to continue in perpetuity. If there are any real points about which the trade union movement is anxious, let us get down to real discussions with the T.U.C. to discuss the real issues. It takes two sides to have a fruitful discussion.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme opened his speech with a serious assessment, which most hon. Members share, of the difficulties which face this country in the long term. It is quite fruitless to talk about pledges hither and thither to repeal this or that. One knows very well that repeal of the 1957 Rent Act led to replacement by the 1965 Rent Act, which took on board most of the rent provisions in the earlier 1957 Act and which facilitated more rent flexibility in the future than existed in the past. Any repeal of this Act would involve of necessity the replacement of most of the provisions by something designed to achieve the same kind of objective. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I know this touches emotional chords among some hon. Members opposite, but registration was regarded as the least contentious of the issues throughout the discussions that followed Donovan and the Labour Government's proposals.
If there are real issues, if that is the bone of contention which disturbs the trade union movement, let the trade unions recognise that they will give the best service to their members by coming forward to my right hon. Friend and saying what it is that grieves them and giving him the opportunity of looking at points one by one.
In those circumstances, the fruitful discussion of the real issues, which I suspect hon. Members on both sides would like to begin, can get under way. The time for driving each other in the same numbers into the Lobbies canvassing issues of principles underlying the Industrial Relations Act has surely come to an end. The time has now come when we can make constructive use of this legislation for the good of the nation.
Question put,
That the Industrial Relations Act 1971 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1522), dated 15th September 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd September, in the last Session of Parliament, be withdrawn:—
The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 208.

Division No. 51.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Duffy, A. E. P.

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Albu, Austen

Dunn, James A.

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Dunnett, Jack

Judd, Frank

Allen, Scholefield

Eadie, Alex

Kaufman, Gerald

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Edelman, Maurice

Kelley, Richard

Armstrong, Ernest

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Kerr, Russell

Ashley, Jack

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Kinnock, Neil

Ashton, Joe

Ellis, Tom

Lambie, David

Atkinson, Norman

English, Michael

Lamond, James

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Evans, Fred

Latham, Arthur

Barnes, Michael

Ewing, Henry

Lawson, George

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Leadbitter, Ted

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Baxter, William

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Leonard, Dick

Beaney, Alan

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Foley, Maurice

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Bishop, E. S.

Foot, Michael

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Ford, Ben

Lipton Marcus

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Booth, Albert

Forrester, John

Lomas, Kenneth

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Loughlin, Charles

Broughton, Sir Alfred

Freeson, Reginald

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

Galpern, Sir Myer

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Garrett, W. E.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Gilbert, Dr. John

McBride, Neil

Buchan, Norman

Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

McCann, John

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Golding, John

McCartney, Hugh

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

McElhone, Frank

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Gourlay, Harry

McGuire, Michael

Cant, R. B.

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Carmichael, Neil

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Mackie, John

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Mackintosh, John P.

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Maclennan, Robert

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Hardy, Peter

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Cohen, Stanley

Harper, Joseph

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

Coleman, Donald

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Marks, Kenneth

Concannon, J. D.

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Marquand, David

Conlan, Bernard

Hattersley, Roy

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Heffer, Eric S.

Mayhew, Christopher

Crawshaw, Richard

Horam, John

Meacher, Michael

Cronin, John

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Mendelson, John

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Huckfield, Leslie

Mikardo, Ian

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Millan, Bruce

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Davidson, Arthur

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Milne, Edward

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Hunter, Adam

Molloy, William

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur(Edge Hill)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Janner, Greville

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Deakins, Eric

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Moyle, Roland

Delargy, H. J.

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

John, Brynmor

Murray, Ronald King

Dempsey, James

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Oakes, Gordon

Doig, Peter

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

Ogden, Eric

Dormand, J. D.

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

O'Halloran, Michael

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

O'Malley, Brian

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Oram, Bert

Driberg, Tom

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

Orbach, Maurice

Orme, Stanley

Rose, Paul B.

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Oswald, Thomas

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Sandelson, Neville

Tinn, James

Paget, R. T.

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Tomney, Frank

Palmer, Arthur

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Tuck, Raphael

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

Urwin, T. W.

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

Varley, Eric G.

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Wainwright, Edwin

Pavitt, Laurie

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Sillars, James

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Pendry, Tom

Silverman, Julius

Wallace, George

Perry, Ernest G.

Skinner, Dennis

Watkins, David

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Small, William

Weitzman, David

Prescott, John

Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Spearing, Nigel

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Price, William (Rugby)

Spriggs, Leslie

Whitehead, Phillip

Probert, Arthur

Stallard, A. W.

Whitlock, William

Rankin, John

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Richard, Ivor

Strang, Gavin

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Woof, Robert

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Swain, Thomas

Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)

Taverne, Dick

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

Mr. James Hamilton and

Roper, John

Mr. William Hamling.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Cooper, A. E.

Green, Alan

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Cordle, John

Grieve, Percy

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

Cormack, Patrick

Grylls, Michael

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Costain, A. P.

Gummer, Selwyn

Astor, John

Critchley, Julian

Gurden, Harold

Atkins, Humphrey

Crouch, David

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Awdry, Daniel

Crowder, F. P.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Curran, Charles

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Balniel, Lord

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutstord)

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Batsford, Brian

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. James

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Bell, Ronald

Dean, Paul

Haselhurst, Alan

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hastings, Stephen

Benyon, W,

Dixon, Piers

Havers, Michael

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Hawkins, Paul

Biffen, John

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Hay, John

Biggs-Davison, John

Drayson, G. B.

Hayhoe, Barney

Blaker, Peter

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Dykes, Hugh

Heseltine, Michael

Body, Richard

Eden, Sir John

Hicks, Robert

Boscawen, Robert

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Higgins, Terence L

Bossom, Sir Clive

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Hiley, Joseph

Bowden, Andrew

Emery, Peter

Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

Boyd-Carpenter Rt. Hn. John

Farr, John

Holland, Philip

Brain, Bernard

Fell, Anthony

Holt, Miss Mary

Bray, Ronald

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Hooson, Emlyn

Brewis John

Fidler, Michael

Hordern, Peter

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Hornby, Richard

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Bryan, Paul

Fookes, Miss Janet

Howell, David (Guildford)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)

Fortescue, Tim

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Buck, Antony

Foster, Sir John

Hunt, John

Bullus, Sir Eric

Fowler, Norman

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Burden, F. A.

Fox, Marcus

Iremonger, T. L.

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn)

Fry, Peter

James, David

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Channon, Paul

Gardner, Edward

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Chapman, Sydney

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Jessel, Toby

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Churchill, W. S.

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Goodhart, Philip

Jopling, Michael

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Goodhew, Victor

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Clegg, Walter

Gorst, John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Cockeram, Eric

Gower, Raymond

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

Cooke, Robert

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C.)

Kershaw, Anthony

Coombs, Derek

Gray, Hamish

Kilfedder, James

580

581

Kimball, Marcus

Neave, Airey

Sproat, Iain

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Stainton, Keith

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Kirk, Peter

Nott, John

Steel, David

Kitson, Timothy

Onslow, Cranley

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Knox, David

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Lambton, Lord

Osborn, John

Stokes, John

Lane, David

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Sutcliffe, John

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Tapsell. Peter

Le Marchant, Spencer

Parkinson, Cecil

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Peel, John

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

Longden, Gilbert

Percival, Ian

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Loveridge, John

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Luce, R. N.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Tebbit, Norman

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Pink, R. Bonner

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

MacArthur, Ian

Pounder, Rafton

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

McCrindle, R. A.

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)

McLaren, Martin

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

McMaster, Stanley

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Tilney, John

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Trew, Peter

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Raison, Timothy

Tugendhat, Christopher

Maddan, Martin

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Madel, David

Redmond, Robert

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Maginnis, John E.

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Marten, Neil

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Waddington, David

Mather, Carol

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Maude, Angus

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Mawby, Ray

Ridsdale, Julian

Wall, Patrick

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Waiters, Dennis

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Ward, Dame Irene

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Warren, Kenneth

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Miscampbell, Norman

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

Rost, Peter

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Mitchell David (Basingstoke)

Royle, Anthony

Wiggin, Jerry

Moate, Roger

Russell, Sir Ronald

Wilkinson, John

Molyneaux, James

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Winterton, Nicholas

Money, Ernle

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Scott, Nicholas

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Monro, Hector

Scott-Hopkins, James

Woodnutt, Mark

Montgomery, Fergus

Sharpies, Richard

Worsley, Marcus

More, Jasper

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Simeons, Charles

Younger, Hn. George

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Morrison, Charles

Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mudd, David

Soref, Harold

Mr. Reginald Eyre and

Murton, Oscar

Speed, Keith

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Spence, John

Division No. 52.]

AYES

[11.29 p.m.

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Armstrong, Ernest

Golding, John

Moyle, Roland

Ashton, Joe

Gourlay, Harry

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Atkinson, Norman

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Murray, Ronald King

Barnes, Michael

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Oakes, Gordon

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Ogden, Eric

Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

O'Malley, Brian

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Orme, Stanley

Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Hardy, Peter

Oswald, Thomas

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Harper, Joseph

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Booth, Albert

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

Palmer, Arthur

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Hattersley, Roy

Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

Heffer, Eric S.

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Buchan, Norman

Horam, John

Pavitt, Laurie

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Pendry, Tom

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Huckfield, Leslie

Perry, Ernest G.

Cant, R. B.

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Carmichael, Neil

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Prescott, John

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Price, William (Rugby)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Hunter, Adam

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Cohen, Stanley

Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

Coleman, Donald

Janner, Greville

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Roderick, CaerwynE. (Br'c'n&R'dnor)

Concannon, J. D.

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Conlan, Bernard

John, Brynmor

Roper, John

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Ross, Rt. Hn William (Kilmarnock)

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Sandelson, Neville

Cronin, John

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

Judd, Frank

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

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Kaufman, Gerald

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Davidson, Arthur

Kerr, Russell

Silkin, Hn. S.C. (Dulwich)

Kinnock, Neil

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Lambie, David

Sillars, James

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lamond, James

Skinner, Dennis

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lawson, George

Small, William

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Leadbitter, Ted

Spearing, Nigel

Deakins, Eric

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Spriggs, Leslie

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Lomas, Kenneth

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Dempsey, James

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Strang, Gavin

Doig, Peter

McCartney, Hugh

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Dormand, J. D.

McElhone, Frank

Swain, Thomas

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

McGuire, Michael

Taverne, Dick

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Mackintosh, John P.

Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff. W.)

Driberg. Tom

Maclennan, Robert

Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

Duffy, A. E. P.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Tomney, Frank

Dunnett, Jack

McNamara, J. Kevin

Urwin, T. W.

Eadie, Alex

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Varley, Eric G.

Edelman, Maurice

Marks, Kenneth

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Watkins, David

Ellis, Tom

Meacher, Michael

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

English, Michael

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Evans, Fred

Mendelson, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Ewing, Henry

Mikardo, Ian

Whitlock, William

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Millan, Bruce

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Woof, Robert

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Milne, Edward

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Foot, Michael

Molloy, William

Mr. James A. Dunn and

Forrester, John

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Mr. William Hamling.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Cooke, Robert

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Bray, Ronald

Coombs, Derek

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Cooper, A. E.

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Cordle, John

Awdry, Daniel

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Cormack, Patrick

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Critchley, Julian

Balniel, Lord

Bryan, Paul

Crouch, David

Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)

Crowder, F. P.

Bell, Ronald

Buck, Anthony

Curran, Charles

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Burden, F. A.

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Biffen, John

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Dean, Paul

Biggs-Davison, John

Chapman, Sydney

Dixon, Piers

Blaker, Peter

Chichester-Clark, R.

Drayson, G. B.

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Churchill, W. S.

Dykes, Hugh

Boscawen, Robert

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Eden, Sir John

Bowden, Andrew

Clegg, Walter

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

606

607

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Kershaw, Anthony

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Emery, Peter

Kilfedder, James

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Eyre, Reginald

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Ross, Hugh (Hornsey)

Fell, Anthony

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rost, Peter

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Royle, Anthony

Fidler, Michael

Knox, David

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Lane, David

Scott-Hopkins, James

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Fortescue, Tim

Le Marchant, Spencer

Simeons, Charles

Foster, Sir John

Longden, Gilbert

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fowler, Norman

Loveridge, John

Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

Fox, Marcus

Luce, R. N.

Soref, Harold

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

MacArthur, Ian

Speed, Keith

Fry, Peter

McCrindle, R. A.

Spence, John

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

McLaren, Martin

Sproat, Iain

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Stainton, Keith

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Steel, David

Goodhart, Phillip

Madel, David

Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

Goodhew, Victor

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Stokes, John

Gower, Raymond

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Sutcliffe, John

Green, Alan

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Tapsell, Peter

Grieve, Percy

Miscampbell, Norman

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Mitchell, Lt-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)

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

Griffiths Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Grylls, Michael

Molyneaux, James

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Gummer, Selwyn

Money Ernle

Tebbit, Norman

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Monro, Hector

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

More, Jasper

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Tilney, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Hastings, Stephen

Mudd, David

Trew, Peter

Hay, John

Murton, Oscar

Tugendhat, Christopher

Hicks, Robert

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Hiley, Joseph

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Holland, Philip

Nott, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Holt, Miss Mary

Onslow, Cranley

Waddington, David

Hooson, Emlyn

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Hordern, Peter

Osborn, John

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Hornby, Richard

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Ward, Dame Irene

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Warren, Kenneth

Howell, David (Guildford)

Parkinson, Cecil

Weatherill, Bernard

Hunt, John

Percival, Ian

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pink, R. Bonner

Wiggin, Jerry

Iremonger, T. L.

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Wilkinson, John

Irvine, Byrant Godman (Rye)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Winterton, Nicholas

James, David

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Raison, Timothy

Woodnutt, Mark

Jessel, Toby

Redmond, Robert

Younger, Hn. George

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Rees, Peter (Dover)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Mr. Michael Jopling and

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Mr. Hamish Gray.

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Motions relating to Industrial Relations (S.I. 1971, No. 1522 and S.I., 1971, No. 1682) may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half—past Eleven o'clock.[The Prime Minister.]

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn,—[Mr. Weatherill.]

CONSTANT ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE (PERSONAL CASES)
11.38 p.m.
Mr. Peter Hardy: First, may I offer some sympathy to the Minister for his being kept here at this rather late hour. However, I am sure he will acknowledge that the subject of our short debate is worthy of our concern and attention.
I know that the Minister views the constant attendance allowance and the
608
difficult individual problems which it is designed to tackle as being of serious and urgent importance.
I was pleased, therefore, to read the statement from the Department in a letter which I received on 5th November, 1971, that the present arrangement is seen as only a first step. However, I am sure that the Minister will agree that once the first step is taken the second and succeeding steps ought not to be long delayed. The momentum of community concern should be maintained.
The first of the two constituents to whom I wish to draw attention seems not to have had the favourable consideration which I am quite sure he deserves. A couple of weeks ago the Minister

609
informed me that 65 per cent. of applications have been approved so far. This is very commendable. That being so, I believe that the first application of my constituent, Mr. Hubert Roberts, let alone his subsequent review, should have been successful.
I know that the Minister is aware of the details of Mr. Roberts' case. I trust that he will not mind my repeating some of them, since not merely is it necessary in presenting Mr. Roberts' case, but to do so is inevitably to pay tribute to a man who unquestionably merits it.
Mr. Roberts is in his early sixties. Before his premature retirement he was a mineworker at a local colliery, New Stubbin. He worked there for a long time until his diabetic condition compelled him to cease work. His condition deteriorated, and in 1966 one leg, and then in 1968 the other, had to be amputated. Both were removed above the knee. That has been a dreadfully heavy and harsh blow for him. In addition, Mr. Roberts remains a victim of severe diabetes so that physical infirmities, apart from the amputations, apply. Indeed, the other conditions can be quite harsh enough without the painful and extreme disability from which he suffers.
It should be said that throughout his years of ordeal Mr. Roberts has borne himself admirably. Only three or four days ago Councillor Carr, one of Mr. Roberts' representatives on the Raw-marsh Urban District Council, told me that everyone in Mr. Roberts' area both knew and respected him. His cheerfulness and fortitude are an example to all. Those who know most about him feel strongly that the application should be granted. It is felt that if he had in any way, and understandably, lost his moral strength—and had not been sustained by those close to him—then an allowance might have been more readily obtained.
I spoke to Mr. Roberts' own doctor. Dr. Jockel, a wise and experienced family physician, who knows the family well. Dr. Jockel has permitted me to say that he strongly supports Mr. Roberts' case, and he believes that Mr. Roberts deserves assistance. He spoke very highly of my constituent.
Mr. Roberts' local council supports the case, and it is hoping to offer a house
610
specially designed for the disabled. It appreciates the needs of the family. The councillors certainly believe that he needs support. However, even if this house is provided, Mrs. Roberts will not find that the heavy demands upon her will noticeably reduce. The need for continued and constant care will persist. The attention she gives is needed, and it is available, as it must be, both day and night. I believe that it is sufficiently needed and available throughout all the hours that an attendance allowance is amply justified.
But it has been refused. I have looked at the papers, and it seems to me that the main reason for the refusal is that Mr. Roberts sleeps soundly. The point must be made that when he sleeps soundly it is because it takes tablets to enable him to do so. However, such good sleep is not really possible for Mrs. Roberts who has to remain able to act with an alert response to the needs which may well arise. There is the continuing danger, I am told, of insulin reaction. Nor could Mr. Roberts receive any attention without Mrs. Roberts being at hand and easily awake.
I believe that Mrs. Roberts' condition is one requiring the constant devotion which he needs and which has sustained him. He needs the supervision and repeated attention, and those are the conditions required for qualifications for the constant attendance allowance.
The second case is different. However, it illustrates a general problem which is most relevant in any consideration of extensions to the present system of assistance. If public recognition of the needs of the disabled is to increase, as it should, then the problems of the mentally handicapped need to be treated with increasing generosity.
James Snook, of Brinsworth, near Rotherham, is severely handicapped. He is a mongol, now in his twenties. All his life he has received the devoted care of his parents, who have built a sacrifice of so much of their lives. The Minister will know of similar instances and will be aware of the great demands made upon the families involved.
Let me give one rather topical example. It is fashionable in the first weeks of the British new year for those who can afford it—and perhaps many

611
who cannot—to spend much of their time planning the summer holiday. The choice for the Snooks is inevitably rather limited. Caravan holidays have been usual. This means that Mrs. Snook, perhaps the most deserving member of the family since she is most frequently at home, because of the nature of the holiday has the least benefit of the change.
The Snooks have lived with this problem now for a very long time. From their experience and the wisdom that they have gained in so close an association with the problem, Mr. Snook has been able to play a part in local organisations which are doing so much today in caring for the mentally handicapped. However, Mr. Snook, an employee of British Railways in a responsible position, is drawing near to retirement, and Mrs. Snook's health is not what it was.
As they grow older, James, still a young man, remains strong. Sometimes, as his father said to me, he needs a little cajoling. His responses are not always normal. He can shiver for a long time with an unreasoning fright, and he sometimes needs to spend long hours in the toilet. It is true that he is able and fortunate enough to attend the occupation centre at Maltby in my constituency. This provision is splendid and commendable, but the hours of attendance are relatively short. They cannot match the long hours of care during the day and night which are required of the parents, and which the Snooks hope to go on giving for a very long time.
Some people may say that the burden is too great for the parents to bear, but it is a burden which they have accepted with that grace, compassion and parental feeling which can be counted among the best attributes of humanity. I would not say that their duties should be laid down while they have any capacity to bear them, but I believe that society should show more generously that it is prepared to offer more of a token of its willingness to recognise the burden which is borne.
It should be realised that, if the Snooks had not accepted this continuing responsibility, the cost to the community of James' institutionalisation would have been infinitely greater than the cost of the constant attendance allowance. The Minister may say that this could open
612
the door to considerable expenditure. So it might, but one of the alternatives—probably in most cases, the eventual alternative—is much more expense. Indeed, the extension of this allowance to cases like that of James Snook could well encourage other people to feel able to follow the example of parents like the Snooks.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel able, at the very least, to offer a little encouragement, comfort or hope to the Snooks. I trust that both these cases will be treated with more and early generosity.
Perhaps I should have said earlier that Mr. Roberts' steadfast years as a miner were broken by war service. Much of this was given in the Far East, where he was in the Chindit forces. The demanding nature of his industrial work was not lightly relieved at that time. The Chindits were part of the 14th Army, which I understand was nicknamed, not unjustifiably, as the Forgotten Army. Neither the Conservative Party nor my own is prepared in 1972 to see the disabled treated as a forgotten army. This all-party support is welcome, and it will uphold the present arrangements and concessions, but I hope that the Government and all people will agree on the need to accept quickly that current arrangements should be steadily improved.
Therefore, I hope that the very real disappointment which the refusal of the allowance has caused in both these cases will soon be removed so that neither the Roberts family nor the Snook family will feel bitter enough to believe any longer that the label "forgotten" might apply in their case.
11.49 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) for having raised these two cases. It gives me the opportunity to say something about them and to try to set them against the background of what we are trying to achieve in the allowance as it now is and the hopes that we have for it in the future.
I join in the hon. Member's tribute to Mr. and Mrs. Roberts and to Mr. and Mrs. Snook for the work that they are doing, the devoted care and attention

613
which they are giving to the badly disabled members of their families. We all want to give practical help to this type of family in the burdens which they bear.
We have made a start, with the new attendance allowance at the rate of £4.80 per week, and we have started with the most severely disabled of all. This is a small beginning, and it was necessary to start in this way because inevitably an allowance of this kind, which is new, requires working in. Equally, an allowance of this kind requires careful medical assessment, which means medical manpower being used, with all the time and so on that that involves. For this reason we deliberately started with the most severely disabled of all, but we are anxious, as is the hon. Gentleman, to extend the arrangements as soon as we possibly can.
The hon. Gentleman will realise that it would not be proper for me to go into the merits of the two cases to which he referred. The Act puts this duty on the independent Attendance Allowance Board, and it is for it to judge the medical merits within the terms of the Act. However, perhaps I can comment briefly on these two cases.
The application of Mr. Roberts was turned down. He applied for a review through the hon. Gentleman and the review procedure took place, which meant that the case was looked at twice. The Attendance Allowance Board found that Mr. Roberts did not ordinarily require attention at night, and this is the reason why he does not fall within the terms of the Act as it stands. However, in this case, if Mr. Roberts should unhappily get worse and thinks that he might qualify, it is always open to him to ask for a further review.
Mr. Hardy: Does that mean that my constituent can apply at three-monthly intervals?
Mr. Dean: There would be no point in him doing so if his condition remained unchanged or as long as the allowance remains as it is. Thus, the two points for Mr. Roberts to bear in mind are, first, that should his condition unhappily become worse, then that might bring him within the present regulations, or secondly, that lie should look out for
614
the extension which we hope to achieve before long, and that might bring him within them.
The case of Mr. Snook is in a slightly different category in that the Attendance Allowance Board is now reviewing the case and no decision has yet been given. I therefore cannot anticipate what its decision will be. If it goes in his favour, he will receive the allowance. If it does not, then the same points will apply to him as I mentioned in connection with Mr. Roberts.
I only wish that I could say more about these two cases because we are all extremely sympathetic. However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to give a progress report, as it were, on how the allowance is working out.
We estimated at the beginning that about 50,000 people would qualify in the present stage one. In fact, by 25th January over 64,000 awards had been made and claims are still coming in at the rate of several thousand a week. The successful awards are over 60 per cent. of the claims actually made, and in the case of children the percentage is somewhat higher. There have been 12,000 applications for reviews, of which 74 per cent. have been successful.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the qualification conditions now are. They are essentially that the person concerned needs care both by day and by night. The intention is specifically reflected in the first medical requirement for the allowance:
"A person must be so severely disabled physically or mentally that he requires from another person, in connection with his bodily functions, frequent attention throughout the day and prolonged or repeated attention during the night."
There is also an alternative requirement mainly for the mentally disabled that a person must be
"so severely disabled physically or mentally that he requires continual supervision from another person in order to avoid substantial danger to himself or others."
These requirements in the 1970 Act are the same as those in the Bill of the previous Government, which fell when the last Parliament was dissolved.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that we must maintain the momentum, having started on this road and having seen the very bad disabled cases who do not yet

615
fall within the criteria. He rightly said that we are all anxious to move along this road as fast as we can. While the allowance as it is now will help more severely disabled people than we expected, we appreciate, as we have always appreciated, that it will by no means meet the needs of all severely disabled people but only those of the most severely disabled members of the community, those who need a great deal of help from another person both day and night.
The present stage has always been regarded as only a start, which it is hoped to extend in the light of experience gained in introducing the allowance, when the administrative and financial implications allow. If it is decided to develop the scheme to include further categories, for example, those who need a lot of help by day but little or none at night, much larger numbers of claimants would be involved and legislation would be required. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for any such extension tonight.
The 1970 Act provides for questions relating to the medical requirements for the allowance to be decided by the Attendance Allowance Board, which is an independent body set up under the Act. Because the board cannot cope with all the claims it is empowered by the Act to delegate its function in individual cases to medical practitioners. The Board has nominated as its delegates various medical officers of the Department, otherwise employed on social security work, and medical practitioners from outside the Department experienced in war pensions and industrial injuries work.
On the subject of the review procedure, the Board may review a decision
616
on any ground within three months. It may also review at any time if in making its original or previous decision it was ignorant of or mistaken as to a material fact, or if there has since been a relevant change of circumstance, for example, if the need for attention has increased. Following a decision on review, the claimant has a right to apply to a National Insurance Commissioner for leave to appeal on a question of law. There is no appeal on questions of medical fact or opinion.
Having appointed to the Attendance Allowance Board those best qualified to deal with such questions, it was considered not possible to set up a higher tribunal, and the unusually wide right to apply for a review on any ground within three months replaces the normal appeal right. There has been some misunderstanding on this, but it is clear, from the figures I have given as to the way in which the review procedure is working, that it is a very much wider and more effective appeal procedure than the normal appeal mechanism which we have in the national insurance regulations.
I am very sorry, therefore, that I cannot give better news to the hon. Gentleman about the two cases he mentioned tonight. I hope he will understand the reason for that. But, equally, I hope it will not be too long before it will be possible to extend the allowance so that other badly disabled members of the community who are not at present within its scope will be able to come within it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.

Second Reading Committee
Wednesday, 2nd February, 1972
[SIR RONALD RUSSELL in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Sir Ronald Russell (Chairman)

Bidwell, Mr. Sidney (Southall)

Griffiths, Mr. Eldon (Under-Secretary of State, Environment)

Bradley, Mr. Tom (Leicester, North-East)

Holland, Mr. Philip (Carlton)

Brown, Mr. Bob (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)

Huckfield, Mr. Leslie (Nuneaton)

Jopling, Mr. Michael (Westmorland)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

McNair-Wilson, Mr. Patrick (New Forest)

Buck, Mr. Antony (Colchester)

Mulley, Mr. Frederick (Sheffield, Park)

Bullus, Sir Eric (Wembley, North)

Peyton, Mr. John (Minister for Transport Industries)

Clark, Mr. David (Colne Valley)

Clark, Mr. William (Surrey, East)

Pink, Mr. R. Bonner (Portsmouth, South)

Coleman, Mr. Donald (Neath)

Roberts, Mr. Albert (Normanton)

Cooper, Mr. A. E. (Ilford, South)

Robertson, Mr. John (Paisley)

Miss A. Milner-Barry, Committee Clerk

ROAD TRAFFIC (FOREIGN VEHICLES) BILL [Lords]
10.30 a.m.
Resolved,
That if the proceedings on the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill [Lords] are not completed at this day's sitting, the Committee do meet on Wednesday next at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a second time.
The Bill deals with the enforcement of our law on foreign goods and passenger vehicles. Over 30,000 journeys a year are now made in this country by foreign goods vehicles, and more will assuredly come as our trade with Europe increases. These lorries, like all vehicles on our roads, are subject to our laws, but not all observe them. They may be too
618
heavy, too big or even mechanically unsafe; they may not carry the requisite permits; they may not obey our rules on drivers' hours and records. Yet, as matters stand, we cannot effectively enforce our laws against them.
I should not like to exaggerate the scale of the problem, but recent checks at our ports have revealed that as many as half the incoming foreign lorries are not carrying proper documentation, and that as many as 60 per cent. are over-weight. The Committee may be interested to hear of two examples. At Southampton, out of 18 foreign vehicles weighed as they came off the ferry one day last November, 12 were overweight, some by a wide margin. Out of 27 other vehicles checked that day at Southampton for correct documentation, 12 had deficiencies of one kind or another.
Again, at Felixstowe, where I recently watched foreign lorries being examined,

619
the results of a one-day check made there and at Harwich should convince the Committee of the need for a Bill such as this. The vehicles involved in the check came from Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands. Seventeen out of one group of 21 were not carrying the proper documents; 18 out of another group of 27 were over-weight; eight of those which were over-weight weighed more than 38 tons and one weighed 49 tons, as compared with our maximum permissible weight of 32 tons.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that such abuse of our laws must stop. The overloading damages our roads and bridges. There is a potential threat to road safety and to the environment of our small villages and historic towns, as I know from experience in East Anglia. Moreover, a situation in which the foreign operator can get away with excessive weights or with the contravention of drivers' hours is unfair to our own road hauliers, who are obliged to abide strictly by our domestic laws.
It is true that, when we catch these lorries in flagrante delicto, as it were, our examiners attempt to prosecute, but I must tell the Committee that enforcement is difficult and often ineffective. It can prove impossible to serve a summons on the foreign driver during the normally very short time he is in the country. Equally, the foreign owner or operator is usually resident abroad and, hence, beyond the normal jurisdiction of our courts. All we can do at present is, as I know the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) recognises, to report the contraventions to the foreign Governments concerned. That is not an effective sanction, since one has to go through many channels, with all the delay that that involves.
A further disadvantage arises from the system of permit documentation. Some European countries restrict international road haulage across their territory by annually imposed quotas. In the case of British lorries travelling to and from Germany, Italy and France, the quotas of permits available are by any measure inadequate. There has been much complaint about that in the trade. British vehicles going to the countries in question are required to produce their permits,
620
failing which they are not admitted. Yet many foreign vehicles arrive in Britain carrying no permit. That is not only unfair, but it weakens our bargaining position with the Foreign Governments concerned, for, if lorries from those countries come here without permits, their Governments tend to believe, from the evidence of the permits which they issue, that our lorries are carrying a larger share and theirs a smaller share of the trade than is really the case.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield indicated assent.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad to see that I have the assent of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), who knows a great deal about the matter. The other countries in question are accordingly encouraged to keep their quotas down, to the disadvantage of our hauliers.
However, if foreign vehicles were forced to carry permits, as provided for in Clause 4, the assumptions which I have mentioned would be undermined and our bargaining position on quotas would be considerably strengthened. Indeed, I am advised that we may actually be able to negotiate increased quotas as a result of the passage of the Bill. That would clearly be very helpful to our international road haulage industry and to British exports.
Taking into account, therefore, the threat posed by over-weight lorries to the structure of our bridges and roads and to historic town centres, the unfairness to our own operators, and the bargaining point with regard to quotas of which I have been speaking, the case for bringing the foreign lorry more closely under control becomes both compelling and urgent.
As well as lorries, there are buses. Buses and coaches are coming here in increasing numbers as the tourist trade develops. There is little evidence that foreign public service vehicles offend against our legal requirements, but, while strengthening our enforcement powers, it seems prudent to include coaches and public service vehicles. Indeed, though foreign public service vehicles are at present exempt from our licensing provisions, the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, which I know the right hon. Gentleman to have attended on occasion, has resolved that a control document will henceforth have to be

621
carried on all internation journeys by buses as well as by lorries.
Mr. Albert Roberts: The Minister referred to several foreign countries. I have myself seen such large vehicles coming direct from countries such as Spain and have wondered whether they contravened regulations. For example, they bring perishable goods from Valencia direct to our provincial markets. Also, how does the Bill fit in with the Common Market?
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I should like to deal with that point later in my speech, since I know that it is one upon which the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, among others, wishes to touch. As regards Spain, the short answer is that a number of countries in sending their lorries here would normally require them to observe their own domestic laws. But, unfortunately, in a number of checks which we have made in this country, we have found that the vehicles contravene not only our laws, but even the stricter weight and size laws of their own countries. It may well be that our inspection, if not our enforcement, is better than theirs.
There is no reason to expect opposition to the proposals in the Bill from the foreign Governments concerned. They have already specified in the bilateral road haulage agreements that our road traffic laws are to be observed by their operators visiting this country and that if their hauliers break our laws they must take the legal consequences.
I am glad to say that the European Economic Commission has been consulted and it, too, makes no objection. There will be no conflict with any obligations resulting from our signing the Treaty of Rome and accepting the Community's relevant regulations. There will be no attempt to afford protection to our trade by this means. There is no attempt in the Bill, or within the policies of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries to discriminate on the grounds of nationality against one vehicle or another. The Bill seeks only to strengthen our domestic enforcement procedures to the extent that is necessary to secure compliance by the foreign vehicle with the laws which already apply to it, but which have been more evident in the breach than in the
622
observance. The different enforcement procedures referred to in the Bill are necessitated solely by the different and peculiar circumstances of the foreign operator and driver while in this country.
The powers sought in the Bill are modelled on existing enforcement procedures. Thus, British vehicles which are mechanically unsound or overweight, and hence a risk to public safety, can be, and are, prohibited from proceeding on a road. Clause 1 of the Bill reaffirms that power and extends it to cover failure to comply with the requirements relating to drivers' hours and records and operators' licences or permits in lieu thereof.
These powers will be implemented mainly at the ports of entry. An offending vehicle will normally be stopped from going on our roads until the necessary remedial action has been taken. If it would cause obstruction to take that remedial action where the lorry is standing, then the vehicle may be directed to a suitable place to avoid jams and obstruction. Under Clause 2 the lorry may be granted an exemption from the prohibition, allowing it to be moved a short distance—for example, to a garage, for repair. But if these requirements are not followed, the vehicle may be detained, and under Clause 3 the driver may be arrested without warrant. This may sound strong medicine, but without it the Bill will have no teeth, for a foreign driver could simply defy a prohibition notice with impunity, knowing that the normal procedure of issuing a summons to him would be ineffective.
Clause 4 seeks to ensure that the vehicle has the appropriate permits or, in the case of a public service vehicle, an acceptable control document. If it is not carrying the appropriate document, the prohibition procedure would apply.
Clause 5 merely clarifies existing law to make quite certain that the authorised officers who already have power to weigh vehicles can exercise such power at the ferry ports. I am sure that the Committee will recognise the importance of efficiently applying the law at the ports.
Clause 8(2) provides a period of one month's grace before the powers can be implemented. I think that is right, for during this period my Department will engage in full scale publicity at all levels

623
at home and abroad. I hope that there will be no excuse for foreign drivers or operators to claim that this change has been made without their having been given adequate warning.
I assure the Committee that all foreign Governments whose vehicles come to Britain, together with all organisations such as port authorities and ferry operators, will be fully informed of the powers in the Bill. The drivers and operators will be acquainted with the powers of enforcement and the legal provisions which have to be complied with, and explanatory leaflets will be available in as many foreign languages as is practicable and relevant.
Given the widespread publicity and perhaps a few exemplary cases of enforcement, if that should be necessary, my right hon. Friend has every confidence that foreign commercial vehicles will quickly come to realise that they have to comply with British laws. In effect, we shall be insisting, if the House agrees to the Bill, on the principle of reciprocity. British hauliers visiting the Continent must, and generally do, carry the correct documentation and comply with the foreign requirements. We shall be insisting, if the House passes the Bill, that foreign lorries observe the British law in the same way. The Bill aims merely to ensure that all foreign hauliers visiting this country have the same respect for British law as their Governments expect British hauliers to show to theirs.
The Bill is unashamedly an attempt to improve our environment by keeping out of it a small number of lorries which are not suitable to it. But I would not want it to be interpreted as a piece of discrimination against the road transport industry, for while it is true that the heavy lorry can be a nuisance, noisy, smelly, over-heavy or over-sized, it is a necessity if goods are to be transported efficiently and relatively cheaply, not only along the main transport routes, where the railways have a rôle to play, but along that criss-cross network of internal routes where people and industry are situated.
I do not think the Bill is contentious. No doubt the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park and others will wish to raise a number of detailed points, but I commend the Bill to the Committee with
624
only one word of misgiving: I cannot understand why the present Government or preceding Governments, of any political complexion, did not introduce it long ago.
10.49 a.m.
Mr. Frederick Mulley: The Committee will appreciate that we should not be meeting under the auspices of your chairmanship, Sir Ronald, if the Bill were contentious in principle. The Opposition accept completely the case eloquently put by the Under-Secretary of State that we must have effective means of enforcing our own domestic legislation as regards foreign vehicles visiting us. But it does not follow that we shall act as a rubber-stamp for everything in the Bill. The Minister at least is not open to the criticism that has been expressed in some quarters about the Ministers responsible for the European Communities Bill. Had the same drafting been applied to that, we might have met our 1,000-Clause target, for there is a great deal in the Bill which, on first sight, seems not absolutely necessary to the Minister's objective.
I hope that we shall not hear the kind of argument that we heard frequently during the discussions on the Highways Bill from the same departmental stable, when it was suggested that the Government were taking powers which they would never use. Apparently, they could be trusted to administer the thing properly, but they wanted to have the powers just in case. The Bill seems to go a long way in giving powers when the case for their exercise is not self-evident.
In passing, I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that, while we want to see strict observation of the law about foreign vehicles, we must not be complacent. Once or twice during his speech I wondered whether he thought everything was well with the enforcement of our domestic regulations for our own road transport. The great nuisance and inconvenience which arises from large foreign vehicles must be stopped, but there is still much to do in enforcing the existing law, quite apart from considering improvements of it, for our own vehicles. Anyone who drives 100 miles in this country without following at least one lorry belching out black smoke—which was made illegal many years ago—is very

625
lucky indeed. We cannot be complacent. I am not suggesting that the measures in the Bill would be appropriate for our domestic purposes, but the Minister must not think that he will solve all the amenity problems associated with road transport by the effective enforcement of rules for foreign vehicles. I am sure that he is not complacent, but I hope that, in arguing for this Bill, he will not assume that all is well with all the other vehicles apart from the 30,000 to which it is directed.
The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill deals with foreign vehicles only. He must not comment too long about our own vehicles.
Mr. Mulley: You anticipated me, Sir Ronald; I was about to move to another point. However, I have referred to a relevant consideration to which we must pay attention. If the powers-that-be cannot enforce the law when they have adequate powers, that is a valid argument against their being given more powers in another sector. We may have to spend time in discussing that matter in Committee.
The Under-Secretary said that various Governments have been told about the Government's proposals. Have they been consulted? It is one thing to say, "We must take additional measures to enforce our law because your people, for reasons of language and because they are here for only a short time, are getting away with murder and clearly we must do something about it"; it is another thing to show them the text of a Bill such as this. I can imagine the reaction of a road operator, say, in Belgium, if someone came in and said in Flemish, "Have a look at this, mate; this is what we have got to live with." The Bill will cause considerable reaction on the Continent, because it is not clear that it is in line with continental practice.
In many ways, our problem is easier than that of the countries of the Six because they have long land frontiers. It is much more difficult to make checks at every possible point of entry to a country with large land frontiers than it is through the ports. I accept that it is proper to do it at the ports. but I am not sure that we should give wide powers
626
to permit a constable in any part of the country to arrest people without warrant for an offence which is not subject to imprisonment. The maximum fine proposed by the Bill is £200, and to give every constable in the country the power of arrest without warrant is to go a long way. We shall want to know why, if the Minister's examiners do their job at the ports, such far-reaching powers are necessary. We have an open mind about it, but if the job is done at the ports the need for these powers is not self-evident.
A lot is made of the question of drivers' hours in the Bill. The Under-Secretary has not told us that, when his right hon. Friend was trying to get us into the Common Market, he proposed on the Floor of the House that our drivers' hours should be much longer, although they were already longer than the hours of continental drivers. One of the things in the Treaty that we shall be considering later is cutting the hours. The idea that our vehicle operators are grossly penalised in comparison with their competitors is not right.
I stress the question of whether we have had consultations with the Governments concerned and, perhaps more relevant, with the freight transport operators concerned. I have not discussed the matter with them, but from an article in Motor Transport of 19th November, 1971, it seems that the Freight Transport Association is totally opposed to the Bill, not because it affects it, but because it does not see the advantage of it that the Under-Secretary has mentioned. I quote from the article:
"The Government's proposals for controlling foreign goods and passenger vehicles are to be opposed by the F.T.A. because it feels they will give officials almost dictatorial powers. Instead it proposes that foreign vehicles that do not comply with British law, e.g. are overweight, mechanically unsound, do not have the necessary permit etc. should be prohibited from leaving port areas.
Strict checking of vehicles in the port area would effectively concentrate enforcement, be in line with continental practice and be more likely to be accepted by foreign governments. Additionally persistent offenders should be barred from operating into the United Kingdom."
It may be that, since 19th November—and we should be interested to know this—the Minister has had talks with the Freight Transport Association and has persuaded it that its fears are invalid.

627
Has the Minister had consultations with our own trade unions? They have a great deal of experience of these matters, and I do not rule out the possibility of retaliation against our own drivers and vehicles if this difficult exercise is not well carried out. On balance, we need more permits for our vehicles in foreign countries than the reverse.
We must watch very carefully how this matter is handled. There is no evidence that much thought has been given to it. If it has been thought through, is it feasible, for example, to have Clause 8 in the Bill, which provides:
"This Act shall come into operation at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is passed."
It is impossible to know what day that will be. The Royal Assent to Bills is liable, through varying circumstances, to slip. It is impossible to plan any publicity campaign for the Bill if a date cannot be given. The Under-Secretary will know that his Department is not very clever at picking dates for bringing legislation into force. For example, when the regulations raising the age limit for motor cycle riders were brought in the week before Christmas, whatever the merits, it could have been done at a different time. It was not by any means, the most well-chosen date.
In a matter of this sort, I am prepared to give the Minister more powers. I am prepared to accept that the Bill should come into force at a date to be fixed by the Minister after there has been time for proper consultation and for printing leaflets in different languages. He must accept that most of the drivers involved will not speak English. Will he have language courses for the police forces throughout the country? Does he expect this to be done as a big administrative exercise throughout the country and not merely in the port areas? That is what he is asking powers for, and, if he is asking for such powers, he must want them for a real purpose, not merely to add to the armoury of unused weapons which governments like to have.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I could help him on one point. A foreign lorry can become over-weight by the load that it picks up within this country
628
and with which it sets off to the port of embarkation. It might pick up a load which is excessive according to our regulations in, say, Birmingham and proceed to Felixstowe. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should allow that lorry to move with impunity on our roads until it gets to the dock area and can be weighed.
Mr. Mulley: That is not a good thing, but if I felt that every British operator kept strictly within the law, I should be more willing to go along with the hon. Gentleman. I do not imagine that many foreign lorries will be doing local work, picking up goods in Birmingham, for example, dropping them in Manchester, and then going on to Liverpool. If there is a check at the ports, both coming in and going out, the attraction of being over-weight will be very limited because foreign vehicles could be detained and effective action taken before they were allowed to leave the country. The real complaint is about size, not so much whether they are, like some of our own lorries from time to time, a little over the weight.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have no wish to intervene further because I can see that the right hon. Gentleman is struggling a little to maintain his own point. If the checks were solely within the port area, and a lorry, having collected a load from Birmingham, was proceeding to its port of embarkation, Felixstowe or wherever else, and travelling with a grossly excessive weight, there would be no means of determining whether that weight was excessive until it got there. I cannot believe that that is acceptable.
Mr. Mulley: I agree that in an ideal world there would he no lorries travelling over-weight. However, if this kind of check is to he made, what kind of staff will he needed, and where are the specified places? In order to deal with the problem of 30,000 lorries, shall we have checks throughout the country, and all sorts of prohibited lorry depots? There is no evidence to suggest that a good job is being done in checking our own operations. It is always better to deal with the larger problem than with the smaller one first. I merely put that forward for consideration. I attach great importance to the way in which this will be handled vis-à-vis the foreign operators

629
and countries concerned, and I do not want to find that our own lorry drivers abroad are arrested without warrant and subjected to imprisonment.
The argument is put that we are merely acting in exactly the same way. I do not think that it will happen very often. I have faith in our own administrative system, and I am sure that our authorities will not exercise unreasonably the enormous powers for which the Government are asking. But when Parliament is asked to look at a Bill, we must examine it to see whether the powers are excessive.
This is an uncontroversial Bill, but the Under-Secretary did not say that today, of all days, it might be thought controversial to extend the powers of the Stormont Parliament, which seems to be the object of Clause 6. It is, perhaps, pushing it too far to say that the Bill is without any controversy at all. I ask the Under-Secretary and his advisers, between now and the Committee stage, to see whether the public relations impact of the Bill, as a terrifying dictatorial document, can be smoothed and improved. I am sure that the whole Committee is with him in what he wants to do, to prevent the abuse of our laws by foreign vehicles simply because it is impossible to bring them to court through the normal processes of our own law, as we do our own offenders. Nobody is quarrelling with what is sought to be done, but, when we examine the Bill in detail, one must have reservations about the proposed way of doing it.
11.5 a.m.
Mr. Philip Holland: The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) seemed to be criticising the Bill on two counts; first, that it is too comprehensive in its provisions, and, second, that it tries to bring into effect on foreign vehicles laws which govern our own vehicles but which are not enforced, the suggestion being, apparently, that perhaps we should not try to bring into effect a law which is not already being enforced domestically.
I sympathise with the view that we do not want too much law. The less legislation we have the better, except when it is absolutely necessary. But, provided that it closes all the loopholes, I am content that the Bill should be a little too comprehensive.
630
As I understood my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the nub of the Bill is that it provides the same measure of control over the weight, size and efficiency of alien goods vehicles and heavy vehicles as we already have over indigenous heavy vehicles. I welcome a Measure designed still further to limit the total size and weight of goods vehicles. To the extent that our own goods vehicle manufacturers and designers tend to produce vehicles that are within the legal limits, the offenders, the producers and operators of over-size vehicles, tend to be foreign concerns.
In bulk transport terms, the larger the vehicle the lower the unit costs. We all want to see costs come down. But there is a price in terms of road congestion, air pollution and hazard to life and limb which must take prior consideration beyond a certain point in the developing size of commercial transport vehicles.
There is a particular hazard to life and limb which has not been touched on by either my hon. Friend or the right hon. Gentleman, a hazard which is greatly increased with every increase in the length and weight of commercial vehicles. Those of us who spend a fair slice of our lives driving along the motorways and trunk roads of this country—most hon. Members with constituencies outside London do that—recognise that one of the worst hazards that we encounter is the impenetrable cloud that attends the heavy vehicle in wet weather, the cloud of mist that is almost fog, which brings visibility to nil as it follows behind and seems to escort the lorry, making vision along its offside virtually impossible. In very wet weather, and especially if the vehicle is long and large, one can hardly see the tailboard when comes within 25 yards. The only way to get out of the difficulty is to take the bit between one's teeth, to accelerate, in appalling conditions, and try to pass the vehicle through an area in which one is virtually blind.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Has not the hon. Gentleman ever thought of using his windscreen wipers?
Mr. Holland: Yes, indeed, but I was talking about very wet weather when the windscreen is being cleaned the whole time. It does little or no good, because

631
one is facing the mist that comes straight off the side of the wheels and, particularly with the multi-axle vehicles, creates a pool of fog through which one has to drive. It is not the windscreen that one cannot see through; the fog is beyond the tip of the bonnet, simply because of the density of the cloud created by these vehicles. I have had this so often on the MI that I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seems mystified. Trying to pass these vehicles presents a serious hazard. I have recently seen an editorial about it in one of the motoring publications, so I know that I am not alone in my contention.
The hazard increases with the length of the vehicle and the number of axles, because a fresh infusion of spray comes from each row of wheels. The longer the vehicle is, therefore, the further one has to drive in a semi-blind condition. I am merely stating the facts; there is no reflection on the skill of the professionals who drive these vehicles.
It is not possible to say that we should not have any heavy vehicles on our roads. The fault probably lies in the design of some of the vehicles; they are too open-sided, and there is no protection to prevent spray being thrown out. It is a serious hazard.
So on all counts—on road congestion created, particularly in towns, by the very large vehicles coming over from the Continent, on the hazards created by the ones to which I have referred in detail, and on the question of pollution, to which the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park referred, it is necessary that action be taken. We see the black smoke belching from exhausts, particularly from the long vehicle on which the exhaust goes straight up at the back of the cab and spreads outwards, gradually settling on everybody in the area.
For these reasons, I welcome any measures which will help to stiffen control over the large commercial vehicle. Once one goes beyond a certain load size, it is time to start thinking in terms of railways and inland waterways. I should like to develop this theme, but it may be out of order, so I shall not pursue it now. I just throw it out as a thought.
632
I welcome the Bill. It seems a little comprehensive, but if the provisions are necessary to close all the loopholes, I accept that, and I hope that the Committee will support its Second Reading.
11.12 a.m.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am loth not to discuss the experience to which the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) has referred, though I fear that if I continued along that road I should be out of order. Suffice it to say—I feel that this is relevant to the Bill—that the kind of hazard he has mentioned is not created only by foreign vehicles; it is created by our own vehicles, too.
The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member will relate what he wishes to say about British vehicles to the Bill, that will be in order.
Mr. Huckfield: I am most grateful for that guidance, Sir Ronald. To continue in that vein, I think it right that the Minister, when he replies, should talk about tightening up the rules and regulations affecting foreign vehicles.
Mr. Holland rose——
Mr. Huckfield: May I make a bit more progress? I should like to make my speech.
At the same time as we in this country are tightening up on the Construction and Use Regulations, particularly the over-weight regulations under the Road Safety Act, 1967, it is right that we should do the same for foreign vehicles, and this is precisely what the Bill is designed to do.
My criticism echoes the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley). I give due praise and commendation to the efforts of the Freight Transport Association, which has summed up the case against the Bill admirably. I am not lobbying on behalf of the Freight Transport Association—on many matters, I do not agree with it—but I think that its admirable and well prepared criticisms on the Bill sum up my case more than adequately.
I am in the unusual position of being in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State this morning, but I cannot help feeling that, in the noble endeavours which he proposes, he

633
is tackling things slightly in the wrong way. I do not know whether he has had the experience of trying to bribe his way with cigarettes and free bottles of whisky past the police and the customs officers at the far end of the Monte Bianco tunnel; or the experience of sitting peacefully in his cab and then suddenly finding one of those Italian outrider-type motor cycles overtaking him and flagging him down. The wagon is then examined and a list of faults is listed in Italian, and a 50,000 lire on-the-spot fine imposed. When a receipt is asked for and insisted on the whole matter is dropped.
These are the kind of experiences with which British T.I.R. operators are familiar when they go to the Continent. When this happened to me—I have been on quite a few T.I.R. trucks—I argued that we should take powers to enable us to do the same to the Italians as they have been doing to our chaps for quite a long time. If I wanted a Bill to enable us to mess Italian T.I.R. trucks around in the same way as they have messed ours, it would be this Bill. In the context of getting one's own back and of being able to do to foreigners as they so often do unto us, this is precisely the right kind of Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Park is absolutely right that foreign operators and foreign Governments will see this Measure precisely in that kind of context. The arguments about the transport of goods between countries in the Common Market are not just drivers' hours arguments or permit arguments; they often relate to what the Italian and French police do in making themselves a nuisance to our drivers as a matter of deliberate policy. I fear that many Italian and French drivers and operators, the two that come into this country most frequently, will think that under the Bill our police will do exactly the same sort of thing.
The trouble is that, until we have a common transport policy in the Common Market—we certainly do not have one yet—and the emergence of something more than Community quotas of road haulage licensing, within the Six or the Ten there will be quite a few "beggar my neighbour" policies. They can alter the quotas, they can stiffen the penalties and the enforcement, and still this
634
"beggar my neighbour" policy could fit in with the Bill.
So I applaud the noble aims of the Under-Secretary of State. I think that it is absolutely right in a domestic context, and in a Common Market and international context, that we should in some way tighten up the rules and regulations. He is right when he gives the figures from Felixstowe and Southampton and says that the so-called foreign juggernauts are breaking the law and something should be done about it.
I suggest, however, that the place to do this primarily is in the docks. Do not let the lorries leave Dover, Felixstowe, or Southampton until we have made absolutely sure that they are not over-weight, that they have a quota permit and that they are observing the drivers' hours regulations. This is surely a better way to do it than by making random roadside checks, with the power of arrest without warrant even by village constables. Let us place the emphasis on the docks. I do not know how the Minister can do it, but I should like to see the Bill strengthened so that enforcement is carried out mainly at the docks.
Having been "up the road" a bit in the past, I know what roadside checks are all about. The word gets round that the policeman is down the road and there are some good ways of dodging him. One knows the spots where the Ministry's inspectors usually operate. I know all the well-known dodges, and the T.I.R. drivers are getting wise to them as well. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that making random roadside checks in the accustomed places is the best means of enforcement, I do not agree.
Much of the difficulty arising from over-weight vehicles in this country belonging to foreign operators stems from our 32 tons gross vehicle weight regulations. When we are in the Common Market the Ministers will have to eat their words about these regulations. When we have a standard Community axle weight and a standard Community gross vehicle weight, we shall not encounter any of these difficulties.
I must confess that I was surprised to hear the Under-Secretary supporting the draconian powers of roadside prohibition. I have tried to envisage village constables receiving lessons in how to arrest people

635
in French. I am not sure how the police in Nuneaton will cope, because they have to deal with a fair amount of traffic coming up the A5 and the M6–M1 Midlands motorway link. I am sure that some of the police I know in Nuneaton will not be able to arrest people in Italian or French. It seems to me that we are placing stringent powers in the wrong place.
Does the Under-Secretary suggest that it is only the foreign operators who are carrying out the "fiddles"? He knows as well as I do the kind of "fiddles" which take place in the licensing authorities with forged permits, and so on. We know that the French quota is only about half of what we should like it to be. We know the sentiments of the Italians about some of our wagons "piggy-backing", "kangarooing", and so on. It is not only a question of foreign operators coming to this country without permits; a fair number of our drivers go to France without permits or with forged permits. The hon. Gentleman must not think that there are no "fiddles" done in this country. There is a certain amount of reciprocity in this respect.
Mr. Holland: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that because there is "fiddling" in one direction no attempt should be made to provide powers to stop it in another?
Mr. Huckfield: I was coming to the point which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like me to make. I would wish all "fiddles" to be stamped out, but I should have liked it to be done in consultation with other Governments because everybody has to "fiddle" a bit until we have an adequate Community quota which covers all the countries in the Common Market.
I believe that the main emphasis of this legislation ought to be placed on the docks. I echo the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park. We ought to be checking both incoming and outgoing vehicles at the ports. I cannot understand why a Milan operator who receives a back-load from Birmingham should leave this country at Felixstowe. However, I accept the point made by the Under-Secretary that if the lorry is over-weight between Birming-
636
ham and Dover, our Ministry inspectors and policemen ought to have power to stop him en route. Nevertheless, to avoid the objection about messing their wagons around, why cannot the powers in this country be restricted to weight and permit or licence evasion? If we allow all of the powers suggested to be visited upon the kind of back-loading situation which the hon. Gentleman has just described, we shall lay ourselves open to all the accusations which the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association and even the hon. Gentleman's Department have been making against the Italians and the French for a long time.
I applaud the sentiments of this Bill. I think that its aim is a noble one, but, as the Under-Secretary knows, it all depends on enforcement. Unless we can have effective enforcement procedures, I am afraid that it will not work. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that he has devised the most effective means of enforcement? I do not think he has. What he may have devised instead is a Measure which, I am afraid, will provoke retaliation on the Continent and which could lose us a very valuable bargaining lever in keeping the Common Market transport policy as liberal as possible.
No haulier in this country is under any illusion that, by going into the Six or into the Ten, we are facing a series of countries with very much more restrictive transport policies than we have in this country. Here I may part company with some of my colleagues. However, in order to keep the transport policy in the Six as liberal as possible, we may need a few bargaining levers, and Bills along the lines of this Bill may lose us some of those valuable levers.
11.25 a.m.
Mr. William Clark: I welcome the Bill, but I look on it as a short-term Measure because it is bound to be changed as soon as we enter the Common Market. A standard transport policy for the E.E.C. must evolve. Even now there is tremendous jealousy and a certain amount of among the Six about how the lorry drivers of the various countries should operate. For example, it is considered that the lorries of the Dutch are too big, and that they go too fast for their size. Consequently, this

637
can only be a stop-gap Measure, because it is essential that we have a common transport policy.
When considering a common transport policy, we must bring containerisation into our deliberations. One reason why lorries are being made larger is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) says, to bring down the unit costs. Most of these lorries are containerised. They cannot necessarily go on the railways. There comes a point when, in order to maintain the present competition between lorries and containerisation from ships and railways, we must consider whether to allow the lorries to get bigger to the detriment of the environment in this or any other country. I am sure that the E.E.C. discussions must take this into account.
I welcome the Bill. I do not think that many of its provisions will be used. I do not think the Ministry has paid enough attention to the influence and control that we have at the ports. If a foreigner wants to bring a vehicle into this country, wherever he comes from or however friendly we may be with him or his country, he must obey the laws of this country. In no circumstances would I let him out of my sight until I was convinced, first, that his lorry was not over-weight, secondly, that it was not over-sized, and, thirdly, that he had the proper documents. I should spot-check many of the documents, even to the annoyance and frustration of the lorry driver. This would have some effect on drivers who are coming into this country with forged or altered permits.
It has been said that a driver might go somewhere to deliver his load, travel to Birmingham to pick up another load and then go on to the port of exit. If it is found on examination that his lorry is overweight, he can be fined. I accept that there may be some difficulty in collecting the fine as he is getting on to the boat to go back to wherever he came from.
I was rather surprised when my hon. Friend said that bilateral talks had been held and that the other Governments involved had been kind enough to agree that their lorry drivers should obey our rules. I do not think this is any concession on their part. If I go to France I except to obey French rules, or if I go to Italy I expect to obey the Italian
638
rules. It is no concession by any Government with which my hon. Friend had conversations to agree that they must obey our laws.
Suppose that drivers are fined for driving overweight lorries which means they have been on our roads overweight; they have not been caught red-handed on the roads but have been caught in the dock area. It will probably be difficult to enforce payment of the fine. Will my hon. Friend tell us whether, in the bilateral talks, the Governments said that they would insist that their nationals paid the fine?
In this country when goods are transported by road the onus is on the lorry driver not to overload his vehicle and on the owner of the lorry, who would have to pay the fine. With foreign vehicles, it is difficult to do this because the owner is abroad and the lorry driver will not have £200 with him. He will be caught just as he is going home, and we do not want to go to the stupid length of putting him in gaol for a few days.
I should have thought that the Ministry would put a certain onus on whoever loads the lorry—that is, the factory. With a consignment from a factory in Birmingham to somewhere on the Continent, I should have thought that it was up to the factory to ensure that all was well. Why should the people in the factory overload the lorry? If it is a 30-tonner, why should they put 35 tons on it? If the lorry is stopped as it goes out and it is found that the load is three tons over the permitted weight, I think that a penalty should be imposed on the person responsible for the loading—the owner of the goods.
I should like to take up the point of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) about the Bill coming into operation one month after its passage. It will be very difficult, because all the regulations will have to be printed in five, six or seven languages. I should think that the Bill will be on the Statute Book by July or August this year, and that 1st January, 1973, will be an effective date for the necessary publicity, pamphlets, and so on. I urge my hon. Friend to look again at Clause 8(2).
I also urge him to look again at our control over vehicles coming into and

639
going out of ports. The onus of over-loading a lorry should, in the case of foreign vehicles, rest on the person whose goods are on that lorry and who has agreed to its overloading.
I welcome the Bill, and I am sure it will receive a Second Reading, although it may he necessary to make some alterations in Committee.
11.33 a.m.
Mr. David Clark: I am in complete agreement with the Minister's final sentence when he said that he was rather surprised that a Measure of this sort had not been introduced before. It is a surprise to me, and I know that a number of bodies and people have been pestering him for some time to take action on these lines.
I welcome the Bill with certain reservations. I like to think that this is not a Bill directed entirely against foreign owners but that it also represents a general tightening up of the enforcement of the law in this country against all over-weight, over-length vehicles and vehicles which do not carry correct documentation. I hope that that is so. I was encouraged to see only this week, on 7th February, that Section 16(7) of the Road Safety Act, 1967, is being invoked. I hope this is a sign that the Government are planning to do something to keep a check on the lorries which are not observing the law.
I speak not as someone from the road transport industry but as a member of the community. I have for long argued against the moves, which did not come to be effective, for larger and heavier lorries in this country. Obviously the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that foreign lorries comply with the laws of this country. As this point worries me, would the Minister say whether this is a short-term Bill? When we go into the Common Market, will we have to adopt the weight and size limits for European lorries? There has been comment in the Press that the countries of the Community would like a 42-ton maximum instead of our present 32-ton maximum. Information on this point would be most useful to everyone concerned.
I should like to talk mainly about an omission from the Bill. I take it that the
640
general object of the Bill is, to try to make the roads of this country safer. The Minister is probably aware of the increasing amount of bulk chemicals being carried in this country. There have been some rather disturbing accidents in the last month or so when chemicals imported from abroad have not been sufficiently labelled.
The legislation on chemical bulk carrying is enshrined in the Petroleum and Inflammable Liquids Order, 1971, and the Inflammable Substances Order, 1971. But it is not very effective when it is enforced against British chemicals, and it is even more ineffective when enforced against foreign chemicals because, as the Minister knows, many of these chemicals go under trade names. There are so many new developments that it is very difficult for the fire services to deal with these liquids if there is an accident.
Should not we have tried to make this Bill a little more effective perhaps by adopting the system that operates in some states of America under which lorries which cross state boundaries have to carry a fairly well detailed card saying how to deal with the chemical, not only if it touches the skin of a person, but also if there is an accident? This matter is causing a great deal of difficulty for the fire and accident people. One of the weaknesses of the Bill is that we have an opportunity to tackle this problem, but we are not tackling it.
I am at variance with my colleagues who argue about checks at the docks, although I agree that the checks should be concentrated in the dock area. I still think that the Minister is right in insisting that there must be some powers for spot-checking lorries outside the dock area.
In summary, generally I welcome the Bill. I am sorry it has not been introduced before. I am disappointed that it might be only short-term and that larger lorries may come into this country as a result of our entering the E.E.C. I hope, that the Minister will elaborate on that matter.
11.40 a.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. We have ranged from the possible extension of the powers of Stormont, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield Park (Mr. Mulley) mentioned,

641
to the idiosyncrasies of Italian motor cycle police and their possibly being suborned by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), to the problems of overtaking eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), and to issues of road transport policy within the European Community, mentioned, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. William Clark).
I am sure, Sir Ronald, that you would not permit me to deal with all these points in detail, but I detected one theme running through nearly all the speeches, namely, that the large lorry, foreign or British, can be a nuisance but that it is a necessity to our economy. This dilemma of a necessity being also potentially a nuisance confronts all of us who are concerned daily with the problems of the environment, pollution, road safety, and the economic provision of transport for our industry. You, Sir Ronald, have shown much interest over many years in the problems of road safety and transport, and you know that we attempt to tackle the dilemma in a number of ways. We try to build better roads, to bypass our historic cities, to hold down the size and weight of lorries, and reduce their smoke and noise. We take road safety action through the Construction and Use Regulations. Yet none of those measures can be effective without enforcement. The Bill is directed solely to enforcement.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his characteristically moderate and well informed speech, asked whether there had been consultations with foreign Governments. It is not the practice for the Government of this country to ask foreign Governments whether we may introduce legislation into our own Parliament. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has taken the opportunity afforded by his talks with the French, Spanish, Swiss and other Governments to tell them about our proposals and intentions. No opposition was found from them. Moreover, all United Kingdom embassies have been thoroughly briefed to provide answers to questions about the Bill from road transport organisations in European or other countries. We have also given to the European Commission, for its information, a detailed resumé of our intentions, and again there was no opposition.
Mr. Mulley: Would it be possible for hon. Members to have a copy of that resumé?
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall look into that. If I can be helpful, the right hon. Gentleman knows that I shall. The Committee will excuse me if I do not deal in detail with the problems of weights and sizes within the E.E.C., but perhaps I might give the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) the reassurance that Press reports that we shall be shoe-horned into 42-ton weights for lorries in this country are not true. The transport policy of the E.E.C. is in a state of flux. We shall join in the negotiations as we become members. I assure the Committee, and through the Committee the public, that my right hon. Friend will press—and has already pressed—very strongly the merits of restraining the increasing size of lorries in the interests of the environment and the comfort of the peoples of all the European countries, and in terms of the economic disadvantages of roads and bridges if the weights constantly go up. We are by no means being pressed inevitably by the E.E.C. into such weight increases.
A question was raised by the right hon. Gentleman and others about the possibility of retaliation. In response to the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton, I must make clear that this is not a matter of getting our own back or tit-for-tat; it is a matter of enforcing on foreign vehicles the British law. I have no reason to expect retaliation against British hauliers as a result of the Bill. It aims only at enforcing existing road traffic laws which already apply, except that they are not working. That is the only change sought here: to make certain, in the peculiar circumstances of the foreign lorry driving in this country, that the existing laws shall apply. We shall give the fullest publicity to the Bill. Indeed, we have already done so.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East and other hon. Members that the period of one month following the passage of the Bill and the Royal Assent would be relatively short if there were not quite a lot of advance notice to those concerned. But I cannot accept that they have not been given the fullest advance warning. Indeed, the debates taking place

643
in another place and in this House are being followed by the road transport associations. But I shall certainly look at the point that has been made.
Mr. Mulley: I was concerned not so much with the shortness of time as with the problem that we cannot predict what the date will be. Any new scheme of this sort makes more sense if it is brought in on, say, 1st April—perhaps that is not a very good day [Laughter.]—or 1st May, perhaps, instead of 27th April or some such date. The Government would have no option, by the terms of the Bill as drafted. I am only asking them to see whether it would be wise to leave the date to the Minister's discretion, a course which I should not oppose. He would then have to take responsibility if the whole operation went wrong. That is probably why he wants it in this form.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, as have other hon. Members. I shall consider it I do not think that I can say more now.
The powers available to our examiners and to the police under the Bill will be used in a sensible and reasonable manner, as I am sure the Committee will expect. They will be used in an escalating manner, so that lorry drivers and operators are not just pounced on without warning, overnight. I give the assurance that they will be enforced mainly in the ports, which are the collecting point where vehicles are brought together at both the point of coming into the country and going out. My right hon. Friend and our examining staff will certainly expect to place the main weight of enforcement at the ports, where the weighbridges are available—or, if they are not, we shall take steps to see that they are. I cannot go further and say that there should be no powers outside the ports. That would be wholly wrong and would leave us exposed to situations in which the law was still being flouted.
As to consultation with British domestic organisations, I can say at once that the unions have been most fully consulted, as have the main freight transport associations, the R.H.A. and the F.T.A. From all those who have been consulted the only opposition has been on the narrow point of enforcement outside the
644
ports, referred to by the hon. Member for Nuneaton. That came only from the F.T.A. There was no opposition from the remainder, and the trade Press as a whole has given the Bill good support.
A point has been made about dictatorial examiners. I must reject any such suggestion. Our examiners will simply enforce the law as it has existed for some time in respect of our own vehicles. They will not be given additional powers, save those necessary because of the particular circumstances of the foreign lorry, namely, that the driver is here for only a short time and may well leave the jurisdiction of our courts. Some steps are necessary to cover that.
I think that it is widely known that in some countries there are enforcement procedures which, though not quite as drastic as those described by the hon. Member for Nuneaton, are, to say the least, exceedingly inconvenient. British vehicles travelling abroad may not be offending against the laws of the country in any way but they can be held up for long periods because the police, in France or Germany, believe that private motorists going on holiday should have priority of movement. Great delay and inconvenience is caused to our hauliers on that account.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The main point which I was trying to make was that not only do we run a risk in having arbitrary powers of roadside check but roadside checks are not all that effective. The word gets round that the inspector is down the road, and the foreign driver feels that he is being picked upon. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says about the need for roadside checks—to a certain extent, I agree with him—there will always be the feeling that the foreigner is being discriminated against.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No doubt, anyone who is stopped and has action taken against him by the police considers that he is being discriminated against. That is common knowledge. I cannot help that, for if foreign vehicles come in in large numbers in contravention of the law, the law will continue to be broken, and that cannot be fair to our own industry or right for our environment.
On the question of the power of arrest, I can only say that it already exists for

645
our uniformed police, and the Bill makes clear that they must be in uniform. Indeed, the Road Traffic Act, 1960, provides such a power, for example, where a constable reasonably suspects a person of being in somebody else's car. There is a whole range of other provisions under which constables have the power of arrest, including the Road Safety Act, 1967.
Mr. Mulley: Could we have an example of a power of arrest without warrant for an offence which is not subject to a term of imprisonment?
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall have to look at that. I suspect that I could answer it by referring to Section 24, which deals with breath tests, but I am not certain, nor do I think that you, Sir Ronald would allow me to pursue the matter much further. All I cart do is draw the Committee's attention to the main points which I made at the outset. There can be no doubt that many of the foreign lorries coming into the country are breaking the law. At the moment, our law is not effective because the enforcement procedures are insufficient. The Bill provides for effective enforcement procedures, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mr. Anthony Buck: Clause 3 provides for a fine not exceeding £200. Might it be appropriate to have a greater penalty for a second or subsequent offence, so as to deal with the persistent offender or the firm which persistently contravenes our law? Perhaps my hon. Friend will

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

Russell, Sir Ronald (Chairman)

Huckfield, Mr. Leslie

Brown, Sir E.

Jopling, Mr.

Buck, Mr.

McNair-Wilson, Mr. Patrick

Clark, Mr. David

Mulley, Mr.

Clark, Mr. William

Pink, Mr.

Coleman, Mr.

Roberts, Mr. Albert

Griffiths, Mr. Eldon

Robertson, Mr. John

Holland, Mr.

consider that between now and the Committee stage.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall be glad to do so. I should point out, however, that the persistent offender might find it very inconvenient to have his vehicle impounded regularly. But I shall consider the suggestion.
Mr. Roberts: The Minister has spoken of heavy vehicles on old roads meandering through our picturesque villages. This is certainly a problem in the Yorkshire dales. Has consideration been given to compelling vehicles above a certain size to travel only on major roads or motorways? Also, what consideration has been given to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) concerning vehicles carrying dangerous loads? Is it possible to legislate for these consignments, chemicals and the like, to be confined to such roads as I have mentioned?
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It would be possible to legislate on both matters, though not under this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
Committee rose at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Local Authority Schools (Fee-Paying)
  Local Authority Schools (Fee-Paying)
  Northern Ireland (Prison Officers)
  Northern Ireland (Prison Officers)
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Water
  Water
  Scottish Assembly on Unemployment
  Scottish Assembly on Unemployment
  Decontrolled Dwellings (Rents)
  Decontrolled Dwellings (Rents)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Fife)
  Local Government Reorganisation (Fife)
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
  Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
  Land Compensation (Scotland) Act
  Land Compensation (Scotland) Act
  Northern Ireland (Prison Officers)
  Northern Ireland (Prison Officers)
  Aged Persons (Housing Provision)
  Aged Persons (Housing Provision)
  Peel Hospital
  Peel Hospital
  Family Planning Services
  Family Planning Services
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Social Service Workers
  Social Service Workers
  Electricity Board (Demands for Payment)
  Electricity Board (Demands for Payment)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Licensing
  Licensing
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Economic Policy (Representations)
  Economic Policy (Representations)
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Divorce
  Divorce
  Education (Reorganisation Schemes)
  Education (Reorganisation Schemes)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pre-Retirement Courses
  Pre-Retirement Courses
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Licence (Deferred Payments)
  Television Licence (Deferred Payments)
  Mail Deliveries (Surrey)
  Mail Deliveries (Surrey)
  Quinquennial Financial Target
  Quinquennial Financial Target
  Postal Tariff Proposals
  Postal Tariff Proposals
ENVIRONMENT
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  West Pennine Water Board
  West Pennine Water Board
  Newham (Civic Centre)
  Newham (Civic Centre)
  Mr. Bert Reeves
  Mr. Bert Reeves
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Oldham-Rochdale Line (Closure)
  Oldham-Rochdale Line (Closure)
  Rail Services (Closure)
  Rail Services (Closure)
  Schoolboy's Death (West Ham)
  Schoolboy's Death (West Ham)
  Water Space
  Water Space
  Camden Rent Officers Service
  Camden Rent Officers Service
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Dangerous Chemicals (Dumping)
  Dangerous Chemicals (Dumping)
  Sports Council (Representation of Disabled Persons)
  Sports Council (Representation of Disabled Persons)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Derelict Land)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Derelict Land)
  Forbes Committee (Registration of Builders)
  Forbes Committee (Registration of Builders)
  M.V. "Germania"
  M.V. "Germania"
  Liskeard (Swimming Pool)
  Liskeard (Swimming Pool)
  Sewerage Schemes (Financing)
  Sewerage Schemes (Financing)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Investment (New Construction)
  Public Investment (New Construction)
  North-West Region (New Construction)
  North-West Region (New Construction)
  Company Profits
  Company Profits
  Private Capital Assets
  Private Capital Assets
  Betterment Levy
  Betterment Levy
  Road Haulage Industry (Taxation)
  Road Haulage Industry (Taxation)
WALES
  British Aluminium Company Limited (Newport Works)
  British Aluminium Company Limited (Newport Works)
  Withybush Hospital
  Withybush Hospital
  Children in Hospital (Travel Costs)
  Children in Hospital (Travel Costs)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Falmouth and Camborne
  Falmouth and Camborne
  Scotland (Job Opportunities)
  Scotland (Job Opportunities)
  Foreign-owned Companies
  Foreign-owned Companies
  Imports and Exports (Related Concerns)
  Imports and Exports (Related Concerns)
  Consumer Protection
  Consumer Protection
  Investment Grants and Allowances
  Investment Grants and Allowances
  Electricity Boards (Disconnection of Supplies)
  Electricity Boards (Disconnection of Supplies)
  Hazardous Cargoes (International Notification)
  Hazardous Cargoes (International Notification)
  M.S. "Atlantic Ocean" (Loss of Cargo)
  M.S. "Atlantic Ocean" (Loss of Cargo)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fish Imports
  Fish Imports
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Whittingham Hospital, Preston
  Whittingham Hospital, Preston
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Unemployed Householders (Cost of Benefits)
  Unemployed Householders (Cost of Benefits)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Interrogation Techniques (Parker Committee)
  Interrogation Techniques (Parker Committee)
  Northern Ireland (Prison Officers)
  Northern Ireland (Prison Officers)
  Toys (Safety)
  Toys (Safety)
  Armed Insurrection (Powers of Arrest)
  Armed Insurrection (Powers of Arrest)
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Grey Squirrels
  Grey Squirrels
  Co-operative Wholesale Society Limited
  Co-operative Wholesale Society Limited
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Milk Marketing Board
  Milk Marketing Board
  MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES (WELFARE REPORTS)
  MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES (WELFARE REPORTS)
  FAMILY DIVISION, PRINCIPAL REGISTRY (WELFARE OFFICERS)
  FAMILY DIVISION, PRINCIPAL REGISTRY (WELFARE OFFICERS)
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Commitments
  Commitments
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Milk (Durham)
  Milk (Durham)
EMPLOYMENT
  Experimental Work Scheme (Scotland)
  Experimental Work Scheme (Scotland)
  Strikes
  Strikes
  Building Industries (Apprentices)
  Building Industries (Apprentices)
  Building Industry (Crattsmen)
  Building Industry (Crattsmen)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY
Joseph Edward, Lord Bishop of Salisbury—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

WHITEHALL INQUIRY REPORT
2.44 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now say when the Whitehall Inquiry will be published, and when the Government's decision on it will be announced.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will publish the Report and make a Statement when a decision has been reached. I cannot anticipate my right honourable friend's decision.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, this is exactly what the noble Lord said in answer to a Question I put to him on the same subject on November 18. Would he not now condescend to explain to the House why it takes 14 months between the submission of the Report to the Secretary of State and the publication of that Report and the verdict of the Minister thereon?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the decision is a very difficult one, and applies to a part of London where it
800
is absolutely essential that the right decision is made.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this Inquiry, which I think was set up during the term of the previous Government, was intended to be completed in about six months? Perhaps the noble Lord's noble friend on his right has something to say on this.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the Inquiry was announced on March 12, 1970, and Mr. Willis reported on November 30. But that does not alter the fact that the whole matter is extremely difficult and complex. It involves a key part of Central London, Westminster, and the decision, when, it is arrived at, must be the right one.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is there not a strong case for publishing the Report in order to give people an opportunity of commenting on it before the decision is made?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords: I agree that there is a case for publication, and this is a point that is being borne in mind by my right honourable friend.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, despite its being borne in mind by the noble Lord's right honourable friend, is it not absolutely outrageous that a procedure of this nature should take as long as 14 months, and that meanwhile the architects, this House and another place—in fact everybody—should be kept completely in the dark? The noble Lord comes here and refuses to say a single word beyond what he said on November 18. Is not that a completely outrageous state of affairs, and should not something be published?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is devoutly to be wished by all of us that these matters can be resolved, and resolved quickly. But we have been unable to resolve them, and I am sure that there is no point in my saying any more until a decision has been reached and I am able to announce it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the applause that he seems to be getting from

801
his side of the House shows that the Party opposite are fully in favour of inordinate delay on anything?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords; I do not think it shows that at all. What it does show is that the position I am in is not one that can be got out of except by arriving at a decision.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord undertake not to come to any final decision until he has had an opportunity of sounding out opinion in this House?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords. The decision now lies with my right honourable friend.

RHODESIA: PROPOSED SETTLE- MENT AND BONDHOLDERS' RIGHTS
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question that stands in my name on the Order Paper, I should I think declare that, while I have no personal financial interest in any Rhodesian Bonds, nor have I ever had, I do hold the honorary, unremunerated appointment of Chairman of the Rhodesian Bondholders' Action Group.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give an assurance that the interests and rights of the holders of Rhodesian Bonds on the London Register have been and will be properly considered and protected in any forthcoming settlement with the Rhodesian Government.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining his personal interest in this matter. It was made clear to Mr. Smith during the course of the recent discussions in Salisbury that we would regard an acknowledgment of liability for their outstanding external debt as a prerequisite of any financial negotiations which would follow a political settlement. A satisfactory assurance on this point was obtained.

ACCREDITED HERDS: REINFECTIONS
2.48 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: 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 how many cases of reinfection of accredited herds have taken place in Ayrshire; how many farms have gone out of the scheme for this reason, and how figures compare with similar heavily stocked areas.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, of the 577 accredited herds in Ayrshire, reactors were found in 60 herds. Three herds were withdrawn from the scheme. Comparisons with similar heavily stocked areas are:

Gloucestershire—231 accredited herds, 4 re-infected, none withdrawn.

Wiltshire—236 accredited herds, 21 re-infected, none withdrawn.

Sussex—479 accredited herds, 35 re-infected, I withdrawn.

LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, is it not most extraordinary that 60 herds (that is, over 10 per cent. of the total) which at great expense have been cleared of this disease should be reinfected through no fault of their owners, but due to the fact that the Government refused to accept advice and take any steps to alleviate the situation? The feeling in Ayrshire is one of frustration—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I feel that I must ask the noble Lord to pursue his supplementaries by way of interrogation.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this figure of 60 herds relates to a period of four years since these schemes were started in 1967. I am happy to be able to tell the House that of those 60 herds, 34 have now been restored. As the House is well aware, the Government are of the view that we must go ahead through eradication areas which will then give safe areas from which the stock can be replaced in infected areas. The noble

803
Lord's county of Ayrshire is due for an eradication area to start compulsorily in November 1973, and we hold that we could be on the verge of a breakthrough.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, there seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the facts. A herd which is re-infected may cost the owner literally thousands of pounds.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with very great respect to the noble Lord, once you have been accredited you are able to insure your cattle. The Department of Agriculture in England and Wales and the corresponding Department for Scotland have done everything possible to encourage farmers to re-insure against the risk. Any farmer can get the carcase value of about £60 when his animal has died. It would only cost him 75p a year to insure for another £100. If you are accredited you get £6·50 per dairy cow, assuming there is a milk yield of 800 gallons; so it is only 75p out of £6·50 per year which has to be expended on insurance. If you have a beef herd you get £5 per beast. So, with great respect, it really is not prudent for a farmer not to be covered. Any farmer who has lost a large sum of money has nobody but himself to blame.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, that answer will spread dismay throughout the whole of the farming community.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: With respect, it should not spread dismay. If you are accredited you gain a certain advantage with the insurance company. I repeat that the cost is 75p per beast.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as brucellosis is such a serious disease can the noble Lord tell me why a farmer with an accredited herd is legally protected against an irresponsible neighbour who fails to maintain his fences, whereas another farmer under the same scheme, now seeking to establish an accredited herd, is denied this protection?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, these are matters which we are now discussing with the Farmers' Union.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, rather than go into detail about reinsurance. which really is not the point at all, can the noble Lord say what investigation there has been into the source of infection? Can he say what extra steps, if any, have been taken to protect those who have cleaned their herds?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the number taking advantage of the voluntary scheme is increasing every day and we hope that this will continue— that the rolling stone will gather more moss.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to answer the first part of my question, as to whether any investigation has been made as to the source of the infection?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords. This is a continuing inquiry and the resources of the Department are continuously engaged on it.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, in view of the fact that islands in Scotland and the Isle of Wight are the first areas to be eradicated, may I ask what steps are being taken to ensure that animals coming into this country from accredited herds in those islands do not mix with infected animals?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it is in a farmer's interest, when he has got his herd accredited and clean, to keep it that way. His self-interest should help him to do that.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is it not a fact that pens which have been infected when, for instance. taking animals from an island in Scotland to the mainland, are not disinfected before the clean animals are taken back to the same farm?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am not sure that I fully understand the noble Baroness's point; but I think that any farmer who has his own interests at heart is not going to bring in any infected animals.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am talking about the infected pens on the boat, which do not belong to the farmer. Infected animals are taken from the islands to the mainland—I

805
understand the pens are called lairages—and then these pens are used when bringing clean animals back. It seems to be nobody's duty to disinfect the pen which has already been infected by the infected animal that was taken to the mainland.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if I may, I would like to go into that question further and write to the noble Baroness.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I very much hesitate to come between the rolling stones and the moss on this matter, but we have a very important debate before us and I hope that my noble friends will forgive me if I suggest to your Lordships that we should press on to the next Question.

CYPRUS AND MALTA: BRITISH BASES
2.55 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what payment is made to the Government of Cyprus for the facilities of a military base and how such payment compares with that offered to Malta.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, there is no true comparison between the terms on which Britain enjoys the use of military facilities in Cyprus and Malta. Our major military installations in Cyprus are situated on United Kingdom sovereign territory and not on the territory of the Cyprus Republic; and no direct payment is made in respect of them. In the case of Malta, payments have hitherto been in accordance with the 1964 Agreements. As your Lordships will know, the British Government have, on behalf of NATO, made an offer of substantially increased payments; in return, Britain and NATO will require a satisfactory defence agreement. The Maltese Government is considering this offer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord may I just ask him what is the comparison in size between the base in Cyprus and the base in
806
Malta, and not wishing to go beyond the terms of my Question, which the noble Lord was kind enough to do in his reply, is it possible to make any remark regarding the negotiations with Malta?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the sovereign base areas in Cyprus total 99 square miles. I am afraid I do not know what they are in Malta, but the facilities of Malta would be substantially less.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT: MAPLIN PROJECT
2.56 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have arranged for the Statement on the Third London Airport which is being made in another place to-day by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"The Government have been considering the scope for associating other forms of development with the airport at Maplin and the possibilities of involving private capital. In considering the nature and scale of possible developments, we have had regard to the need to ensure high environmental standards in carrying out the whole undertaking, including the consequential housing and other developments which would be required in South Essex.
"The airport will be a key factor in the success of any wider development at Maplin. It must be built to the highest standards and supported by first-class road and rail links. We are planning to have the first runway by 1980, or earlier if practicable.
"There is no objection in principle to sea port development at Maplin and we are informing the Port of London Authority that they are free to put forward firm proposals for detailed scrutiny under the Harbours Act 1964.
"We do not think it would be appropriate for primary industry such as steelworks, oil refineries and petrochemical works to be located at Maplin, whether in association with a seaport or separately, both on grounds of regional policy and because development of this kind would create serious

807
problems of incompatibility with a large international airport.
"It is too early to take decisions about promoting a large industrial estate as part of the Maplin complex. It would create very real regional problems. We think that options should be kept open and that demand for secondary industry, hotels, offices and other commercial development which may be expected to grow following the opening of the airport should be considered as it arises in the light of our regional, industrial and environmental policies and our developing relationships with Europe. To this end we are examining the engineering, cost and hydraulic implications of a method of reclamation which would allow land to be reclaimed by stages as and when needed.
"We consider that, although it is highly desirable to involve private capital in the Maplin project, the nature of the project, its long time scale, and the crucial issues of Government policy that it raises, necessitate substantial public sector commitment and control. We are giving further consideration to the machinery required and the best means of engaging private capital at the appropriate time.
"Further announcements on these and other aspects will be made in due course."

PEERS' DINNER ARRANGEMENTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: May I remind your Lordships that dinner will be available to-night, and I hope that your Lordships will take full advantage of it.

BUSINESS: EXPERIMENTAL WEDNESDAY DEBATES
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to make a Statement about the procedure on Back-Bench Members' short Wednesday debates. As your Lordships will remember, it was decided that one Wednesday a month would be set aside experimentally until Whitsun for limited-time debates of two and a half hours each, to be initiated by Back-Benchers. The first of these Wednesdays will be February 23, and the other
808
three dates will be March 29, April 26, and May 24—the last Wednesday in each month. Leaving aside the method of choosing the subject of debate, which the House has not yet decided, the Procedure Committee and the usual channels have been giving thought to the mechanics of the experiment, and I thought it would be for the convenience of the House if I were now to explain what is proposed.
The "No Day Named" section of the Order Paper will be divided into two parts, the first fulfilling the purposes of the section as they are at present, and the second being available for Peers to enter suitable subjects for their Wednesday debate. So far as the second section is concerned, no Peer will be allowed to have down more than one Motion standing in his name, and for the purpose of the present experiment, which will last only until Whitsun, a Peer who has been successful in having his Motion debated will be debarred from placing another subject in that section of the Order Paper. I would urge your Lordships to table suitable Motions for these small debates as soon as possible. In normal circumstances, the subject for debate will be chosen a month before they are debated, but in the case of the first Wednesday, February 23, the subjects will be chosen as soon as possible after the House has decided on the procedure for so choosing. A considerable number of small details have yet to be worked out on procedure. Some of these will be settled in due course, while others will no doubt evolve as the procedure develops.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on the first part of that Statement concerning the Third London Airport, I think it is worth saying that we agreed that this Statement should not be taken orally only because there is a Bill down for tomorrow and if any noble Lord feels he is being deprived of the opportunity to comment on the Statement there will be an opportunity then.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the new procedure. Clearly this is going to be very much of an experiment and I think it would be fair to suggest to noble Lords who find the procedure difficult to understand or otherwise unsatisfactory that they should be patient while we work it out in the light of

809
experience. I have no doubt it is a very worthwhile experiment. May I suggest to the noble Earl a point which he may bear in mind? There are a number of Motions, "No Day Named", on the Order Paper. I noted about half a dozen of them—one by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, another by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chester, and others—which seem to be eminently suitable for this type of debate. Some of the Motions are of a kind which, in the normal course of events, would not get chosen easily. I take it that it will be possible for noble Lords who have Motions already on the Order Paper under "No Day Named" to take them off and put them under the new list. Perhaps the noble Earl has some suggestions about how that might be done.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The Procedure Committee considered this point yesterday, and I do not think that I should be giving away confidences if I said that they asked the Clerk of the Parliaments to write to all noble Lords who have Motions down under "No Day Named" drawing their attention to the new procedure and asking them to consider whether they wished to transfer from the first list to the second.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I hope that I have sufficient sense not to want to delay the important debate that we are to have, but with regard to the Statement on the third London Airport, the noble Earl will be aware that some of us have a ferocious interest in this matter. Is there any way, through some unusual subterranean channel, by which we can obtain a copy of that Statement to-day, without having to wait until to-morrow?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I will endeavour to get a copy of the Statement for the noble Lord.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, to go back to the other part of my noble friend's statement, is not the term "Back Bencher" a little elastic? Technically speaking, it may range from somebody, for instance, of the eminence of the noble Earl who is moving, to-day's Motion, to somebody as insignificant as myself. Who is to decide who is a Back Bencher and who is not?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have always assumed the interpretation to be that if Members are not sitting on the Front Benches, they are Back Benchers.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, could my noble friend arrange for a copy of the Statement on the Third London Airport to be placed in the Library, so that other noble Lords, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, may have a chance of reading, it?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I will arrange for that, my Lords.

THE SITUATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND
3.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD rose to call attention to the situation in Northern Ireland; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. I do so, proud to sail under the colours of a Back Bencher along with the noble Lord who has just spoken to us. Members of this House will have studied the debate that took place elsewhere yesterday. They will be aware that the Labour Opposition divided the House on a highly critical Motion affecting Northern Ireland. We attacked the Government for procrastination; we insisted on the transfer of security from Stormont to Westminster and, in winding up, our Leader, Mr. Harold Wilson, insisted—and I know that I am not supposed to quote his words, but this is a paraphase—that there can be no military solution without a political one. He believed increasingly that there can be no political solution without a united Ireland, with proper safeguards for the Ulster majority at the end of the road. The House can take it that I, and, I am sure, all Labour Peers, from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, downwards—and I am glad to think that they will speak for us officially later—and, I daresay, many other noble Lords, would have entered that Lobby with conviction.
To-day, I want to see whether it is still possible to initiate a debate which unites rather than divides. I do not use that expression only in a technical sense. Noble Lords have been urging me to

811
adopt an attitude of moderation. They seem to fear that I may make a dart, even from this Back Bench, at the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and, employing a weapon which in my case could not be a boomerang, attempt to pull his hair. In that one form of combat I should clearly have an advantage. Other noble Lords are begging me to preserve a high tone; others a low key. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, a great expert on music will tell me how that operation is performed. At any rate, so far as it is feasible I will follow those instructions.
There are many things that I shall not touch on, bearing in mind that there are 25 noble Lords, all distinguished, who will follow me, including my noble friend Lord Brockway, who I rejoice to think is none the worse for—I will not say his baptism of fire, because he may have been under fire frequently—his experience under fire on Sunday. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Defence, gave us on Monday a short, official account of the happenings in Londonderry from the military point of view. It was amplified in another place yesterday, amid a considerable number of protests on procedural and understandable grounds, by the Minister of State for Defence. In the official military account no blame whatever is attached to the Army, or any part of it. There is no suggestion that anything that was done was not done with perfect correctness. That account, as most of us are aware, is in sharp conflict with the account given by many eye-witnesses, including priests who attended the dying, and also by many leading journalists whose names are well known by now to many of us. In these latter accounts grave allegations are made against the military. The London Times gave a useful summary of them yesterday. If I pick out the Guardian, it is partly because the Home Secretary not long ago paid a generous tribute to the quality of reporting by the Guardian specifically from Northern Ireland. Anyone who reads, for example—and it is the only example that I shall give—Mr. Simon Winchester's account in the Guardian of Monday and compares it with the military account will find, to say the least, a marked discrepancy.
The Government, rightly—I hope we can agree on this, if only this—have set
812
up an independent Inquiry under the Lord Chief Justice. I am sure that he needs no urging from any of us to proceed as rapidly as possible. I shall make every effort to-day to avoid prejudicing the findings, and I hope that others will be able to restrain themselves in the same way. I am sure that everyone will agree with me in repeating the deep sympathy expressed in this House on Monday by both the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend Lord Brockway for the relatives of those who have been killed and also for the injured. At the same time, let us express some equally deep sympathy for all those—now well over 200, it is horrible to relate—who have also lost their lives in Northern Ireland in the past two years, including, I need hardly say, the soldiers and police who have been carrying out the duties for which the ultimate responsibility rests on us at Westminster. I have in mind particularly at this moment the widow (I do not know her personally) of a young officer who died on Sunday after heroically fighting for life for five months.
The effect of these events and the events of last Sunday in the Republic of Ireland, and in large parts of Northern Ireland, have already been shattering. A national day of mourning is being observed in the Republic, and I read in an evening paper this statement:
"All Ireland came to a standstill to-day in mourning for the 13 victims of Bloody Sunday' as 12 of them were buried in Londonderry."
And a little further on:
"A Northern Ireland trades union spokesman said: Ireland ceased to function as a working community to-day in respect to the 13 who lost their lives in Londonderry'."
So that shows the gravity of the impact on Ireland, as elsewhere. I am sure the House will understand that anyone of Irish blood will share that sorrow to the full.
An incidental effect—they would be the first to describe it as a minor effect, but it is regrettable—is that the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, have been unable to reach this House. They intended flying over specially for the occasion. They have sent me urgent telegrams asking me to offer their explanations and apologies. The Irish Ambassador, as the House is probably

813
aware, has been temporarily withdrawn, the first time such a step has been taken in the fifty years of Irish diplomacy. No one would suppose that a step of this kind would be taken lightly by Mr. Lynch, a man of the highest calibre, a peaceful man, a brave man and a good friend of this country, who at considerable personal risk has set his face against any possible idea of ending partition by force. All this is a heavy setback for Anglo-Irish relations, but we must hope and pray that we can find a way back to friendship.
My Lords, there is no disguising the grimness of the present scene. One has to face the fact that the bitter antagonism (to use the mildest word available) between the British forces and the Catholic population in Northern Ireland has escalated continuously during the last 18 months, and particularly since internment was introduced in August. In our last debate on this subject here I called internment a tragic blunder, and I repeat those words to-day with increasing sadness, and certainly without any kind of satisfaction. Whatever may be said about internment in theory—and I myself have nothing good to say of it, but whatever could be said about it on some kind of argument—internment combined with forcible interrogation (because part of the emphasis of the present internment is not just detention, not just removal from active life, but internment plus interrogation; that is of the essence of it), as it has been carried out in practice would profoundly antagonise any self-respecting community, whether in Belfast or Kensington or Chelsea. Of course, the effect on the Army is what one would expect with ordinary human beings. If one is hated, I am afraid it is human to hate back.
I have said before now, and I will say it again, that I personally am sure that no Army in the world would have behaved better than the British Army in the situation imposed on them. But many things have gone wrong. It is becoming obvious that the Army under their present instructions have been given an impossible task by their political masters. It is literally beyond human power for them to achieve a short-term military victory without doing more and more political damage, defeating the
814
whole purpose of their being in Northern Ireland at all. Things will go more and more wrong unless their political masters—and in the broadest Parliamentary sense that includes everybody here: the Government particularly, but all of us in one way or another—redefine the military task and embark, without a moment's delay, on the political initiative with the aim of a political settlement.
I read with much disquiet—I hope it was exaggerated disquiet, but I read with much disquiet—a passage in the leading article yesterday in the London Times, whose report, like that of the Guardian and other papers, has been deeply impressive.
"The policy—
said The Times yesterday—
"of the Government"—
and these words may or may not come before the eyes of the Ministers—
"is to bear down on the I.R.A. with increasing severity until the point is reached when serious discussions can begin".
In other words, serious discussions cannot begin now—that is the clear implication of that. And that is not just a view of The Times, foolish or otherwise, but it is the view that The Times, presumably well instructed, attributed to Her Majesty's Government.This policy attributed by The Times to the Government apparently rejects the idea of any serious political initiatives until after a so-called military victory. That policy, many of us will be aware, is a sure recipe for disaster. I profoundly hope that the Government will be able to tell us that it is in fact not their policy. I hope that on this point at least they will be able to repudiate that view attributed to them by yesterday's Times.
The first step which has been recommended by Opposition leaders for some little while now is the transfer of security, including of course the police, from Stormont to Westminster. At the present time it rests with Mr. Faulkner, the Leader of the majority Party—about whom I wish to say nothing unpleasant personally; I think he is doing his best according to his lights and that he is a courageous man—to decide whether any particular member of the minority (that is a third, at least, of the population) is to be interned indefinitely. That rests

815
with the Leader of the majority Party: to decide whether any individual member of the minority is to be locked up for as far ahead as one can see. Without any kind of disparagement of Mr. Faulkner, that is a decision that ought to rest on no majority leader in any community in the world.
And what of our own troops? At the present time the blurring of responsibility in respect of internment—and it was threshed out further yesterday in the House of Commons—and other related matters, have added a further heavy burden to the burden our troops are already shouldering. The troops are now seen by the minority —and I speak after a recent visit, but I have visited Northern Ireland, of course, many times in recent years—as the instruments of the majority, which is not of course the ultimate position in law or ethics. And it is certainly not the way in which they conceive their own duties. As Mr. Wilson said yesterday in another place:
"We here have to insist … that the political orders given to the Armed Forces for whom we are responsible"—
we in Parliament here—
"are matters for which we have the accountability and the control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 1/2/72; col. 317.]
And that (now going back to my own words) can be effected in only one way: by a clear and definite transfer of security from Stormont to Westminster. The Government have not set their face against this. They are understood to be considering this proposal earnestly, and I beg them to give effect to it without a moment's delay.
However, let us look at the whole problem more broadly. During the fifty-odd years of Unionist administration in the North of Ireland serious discrimination has been practised against the minority. Do not let me disparage the efforts and indeed the noble sacrifices of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, who I do not think is with us to-day. At any rate, do not let me disparage his exertions and sacrifices, to which I have paid tribute before. The fact is that he and his esteemed successor, who is also now, I am glad to think, a Member of this House, were excluded by the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland because there they were too anxious to
816
bring about reforms. That is an historical fact which cannot be challenged by anybody, however violent his prejudice. The fact is that the Unionist Party of Northern Ireland has been forced by Governments here—first the Labour Government, in the last stages, and now by the present Government—to carry out reforms they would never have carried out if left to themselves, although the most enlightened members of the Unionist Party, of course, would have liked to carry out those reforms long ago. I am sure that these reforms will in the end prove to be of the utmost value to all concerned. That is something permanently gained. But from the point of view of the minority, so far those reforms have been a matter of form rather than of reality.
When I last visited the Ballymurphy Estate in Belfast, for example, which the Army can have some excuse for regarding as a hostile area, I was told that the level of unemployment was 46 per cent. —I thought I might have got my decimal wrong there, but it was 46 per cent. Yet there is a large factory just outside the estate which employs hardly any Catholics at all. So do not let us talk as though the individual Catholic working man has an equal chance of getting employment as the individual Protestant. One may say that this obviously will take a little time, but I am pointing out that one could not expect the Catholics to feel that any great change had occurred.
Meanwhile, in the last two years violence has intensified dreadfully. It has been replied to on the British side and by methods that have alienated the Catholic population. I will not say that they have been alienated irretrievably—that word ought not to be in anyone's vocabulary in this connection. We must never give up hope. But they have certainly been alienated very deeply. Let me once again condemn the I.R.A. without qualification. I shall do that as often as anyone wishes me to do it and without any qualification at all. But let me also point out—and I speak from first hand knowledge and I believe that if the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, were here (it happened just after he was Prime Minister) he would support me—the I.R.A. were negligible in Belfast until the invasion of Catholic areas. With or without provocation—I shall not go into that now, but

817
until the invasion of the Catholic areas —up to that time, the Catholics had no arms at all and the I.R.A. did not count. But of course there has been a tremendous change since then.
Be all that as it may, allocate the blame or responsibility as we wish, let us deal with the situation as we find it at this moment, the beginning of February, 1972. In his speech of November 25 last year, which in time to come may seem to mark an epoch and which certainly has been received with quite a lot of cordiality and even respect by the Government, Mr. Wilson indicated that in his view the Downing Street declaration of August, 1969, for which his Government were responsible, was no longer relevant. In his own 15-point plan, Mr. Wilson, envisaged, among other things, a movement towards a possible reunification of Ireland after a given period of time. That was significant and it was recognised as significant, certainly all over Ireland and I should think also here where these things are attended to. This was the first occasion since the Partition of more than fifty years ago that a leader of one of the two major Parties—I think the Liberal record compares favourably with the record of the two so-called giants —expressed what is understood to be his conviction that the reunification of Ireland should be clearly and specifically recognised as a desirable objective. In the passage which I paraphrased at the beginning of my speech, he seemed to speak still more plainly in that sense.
May we not hope that the Government—if not to-day, though best of all to-day, then in the immediate future—will themselves use words which indicate that they also regard this reunification of Ireland by consent as a desirable objective. No one could have been more explicit than Mr. Lynch in insisting that reunification is only possible with the consent of the Northern population. There are not many Prime Ministers—I cannot think of any other (and this perhaps may not do him all that good)—who are ready to expel members of their Cabinet for being over-zealous in the wrong sense and then to prosecute them. If one wants a test of moral fibre and genuine purpose, I should have thought that would help to supply one.
There is no question of any coercion of Northern Ireland. De Valera said fifty years ago, "Ulster cannot be coerced." That has always been his official policy. The coercion would in fact he physically impossible and it would be repugnant morally to all intelligent people who care for Ireland, whether they live in that island or this one. For all that, let us assume—at any rate let a number of us assume; I hope all of us assume—that reunification by consent—always by consent, without the use of force—is the only future that makes any sense for Ireland as a whole. It will be facilitated by the simultaneous movement into Europe of this country and Ireland. I shall not pursue that subject because of controversies here and even in Ireland. I am afraid there is considerable argument concerned with it, but let us hope that the two countries, Northern and Southern Ireland and this country, can go into Europe together. That would make a very great difference to the whole problem.
The Ecumenical movement, bringing together the Churches, is at last making itself felt on what one might call the more spiritual levels in Northern Ireland. To say that it has reached every individual churchgoer in Northern Ireland I believe would be a great exaggeration, but gradually I believe it will bring about a great change and will have an effect more than anything else for good. But real religion, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and others may tell us, has never been the whole trouble in Northern Ireland. It has not been a religious conflict which has divided these warring communities. If it had been, if that really were the point of division, it would be a ghastly mark for religion, and I should be inclined to accept the atheist for the first time, if that were really so. But in fact Protestants and Catholics do not behave to each other in that way anywhere else. In Southern Ireland, where the great majority are Catholics, they do not treat Protestants like that, and in Northern Ireland, where the majority are Protestants they do not treat Catholics like that. It is not a Protestant/Catholic situation in Northern Ireland; it is, as I think we all know, a legacy of history. But that is not good enough; it is not much of an excuse so far as we are concerned. It is not good enough to say that

819
this is a product of history and there is nothing we can do about it. We either act now, while we can, or we accept a terrible responsibility in the sight of generations which come after us.
My Lords, what is going to be the transitional form of Government in Northern Ireland? I am personally assuming—and I know that not everyone will automatically agree—that one day, if all goes well, we shall reach a united Ireland; but that is a considerable way on. The question is, what form of Government could prevail there in the intervening period? In the summer of 1969 I recommended in a letter to The Times that there should be a Coalition Government for Northern Ireland, and I put forward the same idea more than once in this House. That, incidentally, was following a suggestion put by the Northern Ireland Labour Party, just before I wrote my letter to The Times. I had every reason to think, at the time, and I still have every reason to think, that if that suggestion had been adopted, the representatives of the minority would have found it acceptable. That is still my strong conviction. But, as I have said before in the House since that time, that idea of a Coalition Government was derided at the time, even by enlightened Unionists. They said, "My dear chap, it it a rational solution of course, but this is Northern Ireland". It was assumed that what is rational was just not appropriate in that part of the world.
Time has moved on, and at this moment I am bound to admit that a Coalition Government would be insufficient. So far as that idea was concerned, which I still think would have been right for about two years, it is now dead, at least under that particular heading. But the necessity for something of the kind which in a sense goes further is as great, or indeed greater. I have tried to draw a distinction in this House before now between what one might call fair play for the individual and fair play for the community. For fifty years the Catholics were treated as second-class citizens, at least on paper. Gradually, that is being overcome, but still you remain a second-class community if you never have any share in government; if there is always one dominating community and one community which is dominated—one rider and one horse. In the long run, this is
820
unacceptable to people as they advance in civilisation, so I think we can see that there can be no possible permanency in that way.
No one can deny that, wherever the blame lies—and I am trying to avoid those arguments because very quickly the constructive side disappears once one begins attributing blame—the two communities are to-day more polarised than ever. That is quite clear. They could not be more widely separated in spite of noble efforts which have been made to bring them together and to which I attach great importance, and which in a sense are novel and therefore encouraging. A considerable number of people are making serious efforts to bridge the gulf, but the two main blocs, as it were, of the community are more polarised than ever. As a result, there is no longer even a remote possibility that the minority community will agree to accept in the future permanent domination by the majority in Government. It is now clearly essential that the minority community should be provided, as of right—and I stress "as of right"—with the opportunity of participating in the administration of the area, including participation in the Cabinet.
I do not wish to be too dogmatic—indeed, I do not wish to be dogmatic at all—as to how this ought to be effected. I would certainly suggest the introduction of a system of proportional representation. As a result of this, the elected representatives of the two communities would apportion between themselves the ministerial offices at Stormont, and the proportions of the offices and the particular offices to be held by each community would be clearly a matter for discussion and negotiation. Something of that kind exists abroad. This is what I call a "community government", or at least that is the phrase which has gathered a good deal of support in wide circles. The difference between a community government and a Coalition, which I have recommended to the House several times before, is that in a Coalition the minority would be dependent on the will and favour of the majority leader—whether Mr. Faulkner or somebody else—and in a community government the minority would be guaranteed participation in the Cabinet, as in all other levels of the Administration, as a right.
My Lords, I hope you will not feel that these proposals have now become irrelevant because of the tragic events and because of the strength of feeling and the antagonism which seems to be gaining strength every hour. I may be told by some well informed people that it is already too late; that Stormont has "had it"; that direct rule from Westminster is the only answer. Friends of mine—and I do not know whether they include any of my colleagues in this House—are recommending that, and I know that some of my Party colleagues in another place have come to that conclusion. We may yet come to direct rule. As Mr. Wilson said yesterday, it is certainly a policy of last resort. But this I must say, and say with a little more aggressiveness to noble Lords opposite: we shall come to that if we drift along as now. Community government will be a dead issue in a month or two if we continue at our present rate of decline. I very much doubt whether it would make any sense at all, if we were to have a debate in April and I were to come to the House and still advocate community government, if nothing whatever had been done in the meantime and more people had been killed. While it may mean the end of Stormont, I personally favour making one last effort to make a success of government in Northern Ireland during a transitional period. One can call it the continuance of Stormont, the end of Stormont or the modification of Stormont—and I think the last would be a fairer way of describing it. Of course I am departing from my view that the unification of Ireland by consent is the long-term goal. I very much hope that the noble Lord opposite, who has had at any rate a little notice in spite of his other arduous preoccupations, will be able to make some comment on what I have said on that and other matters.
There are many other things I could discuss, such as economic aid, but there are other expert speakers to come who will doubtless deal with such matters. I close with the reflection that for fifty years (to go no further back) we at Westminster have borne the ultimate responsibility in the eyes of the world, in the eyes of natural justice and in the eyes of the Almighty, for what went on in Northern Ireland. In the last resort, while Northern Ireland continues to be part of the United Kingdom that responsibility remains with us. It cannot be shirked.
822
The Parliaments and Governments of this country have evaded the issue for fifty years, sheltering under the unworthy alibi that what was done there could not be discussed in our Parliament. It was discussed quickly enough when real trouble broke out. As an Irishman who has served for considerable periods in two post-war Governments I must bear my share—and some might well say more than my share—of the blame. The first Government in which anything real was done was Mr. Harold Wilson's Cabinet, with firm and good support from the Opposition Parties, but by that time I had ceased to be a member of the Cabinet so I cannot claim even that vestige of credit. Our eyes are now open to a very painful but salutary truth. There is widespread recognition among those who have eyes to see that a choice now lies between continued inaction and a genuine political initiative, with reconciliation as the single aim—the path, I would suggest, of disgrace on the one side and of honour on the other. I implore the Government to choose the path of honour, but if they do not act immediately the twelfth hour will very soon have struck for Northern Ireland. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.39 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, the reason why I shall not detain your Lordships long this afternoon is not because I in any way underestimate the gravity of the situation or the importance of what we are talking about. It is partly because it is not so long ago since we had a full and useful debate on Northern Ireland in this House. In the course of it I think a good many shared opinions were found and many interesting solutions were put forward. The events which have gone to fill the last fifty years of history in Northern Ireland, and even further back, were rehearsed fully in that debate, and to-day I want only to turn our attention to the events that have happened since that debate, and of course primarily the tragic events of last Sunday.
I do not know whether it is yet fully realised what a watershed this makes in the whole attitude of Catholics, in both Northern and Southern Ireland, to the present situation. I compared it yesterday afternoon with the change of sentiment that came to Southern Ireland after the executions of 1916, and Mr. Fitt

823
repeated this in another place last night. This is not just a situation where we may feel that there is quite a lot of hate towards us from the Catholic population of the whole of Ireland. We are in this country perhaps over-used to being hated over a long and turbulent period of history. But it was put to me yesterday by a leading Southern Irish politician that the main burden is that the Irish feel that we hate them. That we do not every Member of your Lordships' House knows, but that they think we do is a real truth which has not yet been fully absorbed.
The events of Sunday have led to widespread recruitment for the I.R.A. Previously, moderate politicians in the South were being rung up by their constituents to know where they could contact the I.R.A. in order to join. The position in the South I think cannot be over-estimated in its importance. Three months ago I commissioned a series of articles, for a magazine which I edit called New Outlook, on Northern Ireland. The magazine is coming out to-day and tomorrow. In it there is an article by Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald written at least six weeks ago. Many of your Lordships will know Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald, and will know of the immense influence he has tried to exert in favour of moderation in the Republic of Ireland. He said this then:
"Those of us who are engaged in democratic Parliamentary politics in the Republic recognise fully the dangers in this situation for our State. The wave of sympathy for the provisional I.R.A. is now a serious danger to democracy in the Republic and we recognise it as such. The provisional I.R.A. has now reached the stage where they have publicly challenged the Government to dare to act against them in the face of this public sympathy. For the first time in decades we face a real menace of Fascism and many of us are fairly bitter about the British mishandling of the Northern situation that has not only already cost almost 200 lives there, but is now starting to undemine our democratic system as well."
That was written a long time before the events of last Sunday.
The military solution, at any rate anything like a short-term military solution, has failed, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has already said. We have two separate communities and it is very doubtful whether, in anything like the foreseeable future, the Army will be able to go into any Catholic area except as an invading and hostile army. The only
824
solution left to us now is that of talking together, and it is that on which we must concentrate our ideas, as to how we are best to get all parties to this problem round the table and talking.
In the same issue of New Outlook Professor Fogarty, a member of my Party and a very distinguished, expert politician, argues for the withdrawal of the British Army and the withdrawal of the British from Northern Ireland, on the ground, as he says:
"Bring England in and a red white and blue film spreads over your Republic Irishman's eyes and he hares off after the old scapegoat instead of focusing on the realities of the matter in hand."
He goes on to compare the English presence, in the communications between those living North of the Border and those living South, with what communications experts call "noise in the system", which should be eliminated. I do not agree with that opinion, though I think it is one which we shall hear more and more strongly argued in time to come. I believe that the best chance of holding talks is for us to stay there, if we manage to do the right things. There are now a number of initiatives which I think we should and must take, and some which we definitely must not take. First, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that we must transfer the responsibility for security to Wesminster. It is we who are ultimately responsible; it is the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence who has to control the Armed Services, and it is here that responsibility for all security should rest.
Proportional representation is, I think, something which should be brought in as quickly as possible. A Minister responsible for Northern Ireland, who I would hope would be a Cabinet Minister rather than a Minister of State, is, I think, also overdue for appointment. With every respect to the Ministers responsible, they have been carrying the heavy burdens of very large departments as well. This is a major crisis in the history of our country, and it is wrong that there should not be a special separate whole-time Minister responsible for overseeing it.
I think we have to find our way out of the tangle of internment. I entirely take the points made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the

825
last debate we had on this matter, as to how difficult that is, but we have to find it. If we do not, the situation certainly will not get better but may get worse. It may be that the way through is to release a certain number of those interned who are widely thought, by those who should know best, not to have any great I.R.A. responsibilities, and to hold a series of in camera trials for the others in special courts. I do not like special courts or trials in camera, but I like them better than the suspension of the rule of law by internment.
With the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I feel very strongly about the necessity for what he calls community government. I think this is quite feasible so long as security and the constitutional issue are in the hands of Westminster. But where I would differ from him is that I think the Government have an almost impossible job now in taking the kind of initiative which calls for co-operation from leaders of the Catholic community. Indeed, I would go the opposite way from the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I would urge the Government not to make such overtures at the moment, because I feel that they could only at this moment lead to denials of co-operation which afterwards may be bitterly regretted, just as it is fairly commonly accepted that some of the withdrawals from Stormont earlier on are now bitterly regretted.
Lastly, I would call for an imaginative attitude to the position of the Republic. I called for this earlier, in the last debate. The Republic of Ireland has no status de jure in this affair. In every other way, including that of common sense, it has a very important status indeed. I think now that the time when we could just say to the South, "Come in and talk as equal partners" has gone by, and that we have to widen the whole situation.
May I here make reference to the words last night, of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack? I have already apologised to him for the fact that I was unable to be present, and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for leaping slightly to my defence. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said (col. 775):
"I must express profound regret that anybody, in either House of Parliament, could actually suggest that anyone in the world will say that the Lord Chief Justice of England is not an impartial person."
826
The Lord Chancellor was referring to my remarks earlier in the day. I think it is common ground between us that no shadow of a hint was ever made that I consider the noble and learned Lord, Lord Widgery, unsuitable or not an impartial person.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I made that clear. The noble Lord will see that later.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, the suggestion is as to whether anyone in the world will say that he is not an impartial person, and I am sorry I cannot go back on that point. The noble and learned Lord is very recognisable, and if he went into the streets of Dublin in the present conditions no doubt he would find it very difficult to escape physical damage; but if he were to go into the streets of Dublin and stop the first twelve people that he met and say, "Do you think this Tribunal, with the Lord Chief Justice of England sitting alone, is an impartial Tribunal? "he would get an answer "No" from the majority. That is the report that I have from Northern Ireland, and the report I have from Southern Ireland. It is reprehensible; it is illogical. I disagree with it, but it is true; and to say that it is true does not reflect in any way on the Judiciary of England; it reflects on those who have let the affairs of Ireland get into such a state. If you like, it also may reflect upon the logic of the Irish mind. It does not reflect upon the Judiciary; but it is a fact, and one which must be realised.
This brings me to the major final point, that this Government have a number of virtues. Let me go on record now as saying that they have a number of virtues: they "keep their cool"; they are resolute. They show the virtues of a good Conservative Government, as well as some of the vices of a very Conservative Government. But on the other side of the coin they are not always imaginative in trying to find ways through, in trying to go outside the rule book. I think what is needed now is that we should go outside the rule book. We are going into Europe. Ireland, we hope, is going into Europe, too. It is for the Government to realise that no longer are

827
we in the situation where we, Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland can just sit round the table and talk, because the good will is not there, the belief is not there. Anything that now happens, whether it be a Tribunal, or whether it be an all-Party conference, would gain immeasurably by having the chairmanship and sponsorship of some outside body. For a Government which is European, and claims to be strongly European, what better way could be found of trying to approach this problem than in a European context? One thing I am sure of is that unless we try such imaginative steps forward, we shall merely go from bad—and it is very bad—to far worse.
3.55 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is now some three months since we last devoted a day to debating the general situation in Northern Ireland; and that perhaps is reason enough for having a debate to-day. In any event, we are greatly indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for having put down his Motion this afternoon and, if I may say so, for having made a restrained and thoughtful speech, in marked contrast to some of the speeches that have been made elsewhere in the last day or two. I think that there was much in what the noble Earl said which will meet with agreement on all sides of the House. Indeed, I should like to say that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, also made a restrained and thoughtful speech, and I am grateful to both noble Lords. In addition, there is another reason why it is timely to have this debate this afternoon: because we have had the tragic events of the past weekend to bring the subject into starker relief—events which will inevitably influence both the security and political situations in the future.
Your Lordships will recall that when we debated Northern Ireland in the autumn, at the end of September and at the beginning of November, we noted that there were two main features in the situation at that time. First, in the political field, there had been a switch in emphasis from the campaign to achieve civil rights for individual members of the minority community in favour of a different and more difficult search
828
for some means to give that community as a whole a chance to share in the government of the Province. In the security field, in the meantime, there had also been a switch, from the sort of inter-communal disturbances which we had seen in 1969 and early 1970, to a campaign of terrorism by the I.R.A.
The situation at that time was, moreover, dominated by two recent developments. One was the unfortunate decision of the main Opposition Party at Stormont to withdraw from the Northern Ireland Parliament. The other—and I stress that this came after, rather than before, the S.D.L.P.s decision to withdraw—was the introduction of internment; coupled with the Home Secretary's simultaneous invitation to all Parties in Northern Ireland to join in talks under his Chairmanship. We took note then, my Lords, of the effect which internment had already begun to have, in greatly increasing the flow of intelligence about further terrorists and their activities. And we recognised then that, despite these improvements, it would be most unsafe to attempt to forecast how long it would take before terrorism could be brought to a halt.
In moving on from that time, I think it right that I, as Minister responsible for the Armed Services in Parliament, should say something about the security situation, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me. I think it may be helpful to describe the current security situation, since however much we may recognise, as of course we do, that there can be no purely military solution, it remains vital to realise that the pace of progress in the political and, for that matter, the economic field is very largely dictated by the state of security.
The build-up of intelligence about the identity, organisation, whereabouts and methods of the terrorists is continuing all the time; and, more often than not, each bit of new information leads to several more—so that there is a snowball effect, enabling the security forces to have a steadily clearer picture of how and where to track down the terrorists. This is matched by a steady increase in the expertise of the Army and Police in knowing how to set about this task. It is worth remarking—though sad to remark—that, while there are many disadvantages in having some battalions

829
returning to Northern Ireland for second, third and fourth tours there, this does mean that many of the newly arrived units already have a great deal of experience of operations in Northern Ireland.
The result of these steady improvements in information and in expertise is constant attrition on the I.R.A. While it would be extremely foolish to be too sanguine about this, there is nevertheless solid evidence of just how telling this pressure has become. Regular arrests of wanted men are matched by regular discoveries of further caches of arms and explosives—and these finds are seldom accidental. Some areas of Belfast, which were previously under almost complete I.R.A. domination, are now very nearly trouble-free. In other areas which have been particularly hard in the past, the I.R.A.'s command structure has been disrupted and they have been rendered largely ineffective. There is increasing evidence of groups of I.R.A. moving out of Belfast because the pressure has been too great; and the inroads which have been made into their strength may be judged by their increasing reliance on women and youths to carry on their activities. Of course, my Lords, it is not a picture of unmitigated success. A few areas in Belfast are still very troublesome. Explosions continue to take place, as indeed do assassinations.
Though all this has been fairly good in Belfast, the events of last Sunday have caused what I hope is going to prove to be only a temporary setback. There are periodical setbacks when terrorists who have already been arrested manage to escape. More serious, there are still frequent raids by well-organised groups from the other side of the Border; though recent actions on the part of the authorities in the Republic, such as the arrests of seven men in Dundalk last Friday, give some hope that these raids may be gradually getting fewer. Nor, as we saw at the weekend, is the situation in Londonderry improving comparably with Belfast. Nevertheless, in the last few months progress has been made by the security forces in this most difficult of situations in Northern Ireland as a whole. And I commend them for their efficiency and restraint.
830
At the time of the introduction of internment last August, the Northern Ireland Government—acting with the full support of the Government in London—imposed a total ban on marches, in order to reduce the risk of provocation by members of one community towards those of another. That ban was for six months; but the Northern Ireland Government has now announced that it is to be extended for a further year. I am sure your Lordships will most strongly welcome that decision. It will help in keeping down the temperature and will enable the security forces to get on with their priority task. I must say that I do not understand why there are some who apparently object to the ban. I find it particularly strange that it should be some members of the minority community who have not simply objected to the ban but in fact take positive action to defy it, since, throughout the middle of 1971, it was that same community—and, also it may be said, the Government of the Irish Republic—which pressed continually for a ban on marches.
However that may be, my Lords, I am quite confident that the ban is right and that it must be upheld; and the security forces will therefore have no alternative but to halt and disperse any unauthorised march which may be held, however difficult this task may be. It is, I believe, proposed to hold another march this weekend in Newry. There can be no one in this House who does not believe that this would be a most unwise and potentially disastrous decision. I earnestly ask the organisers to think again, and, indeed, to contemplate what a responsibility rests upon their shoulders.
There are those who argue that the ban is ineffective, because those who seek to defy it have in fact been able to process for short distances. But this is not the point. There can be no question, in practice, of preventing any march from ever starting. The task of the security forces is to ensure that such marches are not carried through to the achievement of their objective; and this is what is being done. What happened in Londonderry on Sunday afternoon was a dreadful illustration of some—though not all—of the likely consequences of holding a march or demonstration in the present circumstances of Northern Ireland; and

831
thus an illustration of the reasons why the ban on marches was imposed.
First, there is always the possibility of hooligans on the fringe of the crowd resorting to their tactics of hurling stones, bottles and canisters of CS, and other such behaviour, with a greater or lesser degree of savagery. There is a tendency for this sort of behaviour to be brushed aside as too trivial to merit the attention of the security forces. But if one pauses to think for a moment, a lump of rock, let alone an iron bar, thrown by an able-bodied youth with maximum force causes very serious injury if it hits somebody. It is intolerable that people should be allowed to attack policemen and soldiers in this way, for hours on end, without any attempt being made to arrest them. And, secondly, there is, alas! always the possibility of gunmen lurking behind the crowd and making use of it as a shield, round which to shoot at soldiers and policemen while they are fully occupied in controlling the marches or dealing with rioters. Both these things happened in Londonderry; and a very heavy burden of responsibility for what followed must therefore rest on those who organised and continued the march.
My Lords, it would not be right for me this afternoon to examine the sequence of events in Londonderry on Sunday afternoon, particularly since there have been Statements, welcomed in both Houses, on the setting up of the Inquiry. And, in any event, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence stated in some detail the information at present available on what occurred at each stage. I would only say now—and I must do so without prejudice to the Inquiry—that the facts as we know them, and as given to me, afford no support for the idea that the troops fired first, before they had been shot at; or that they fired anything but single shots at identifiable gunmen or bombers; or that they at any time fired indiscriminately into a crowd; or that they ever behaved without their usual self-discipline. My Lords, for my part I—and I have no doubt everyone in the House—am content to await the judgment of the Inquiry.
There is one other aspect of security about which I should like to say something more, and that is the question of
832
controlling the Border. This is not an easy problem, certainly not if one is not to resort to the methods of a Police State. In any case, the length of the Border and the terrain are such that it is really quite unrealistic to talk about closing it altogether. There could certainly be no question of doing so without diverting most of the effort of the Army, which now goes into the task of dealing with the I.R.A. in Belfast. The essence of preventing the movement of terrorists and arms across the Border is really the same as the essence of eradicating the terrorists in the cities: namely, to have good intelligence, so that one knows where and when it will be worth looking for a particular movement, rather than simply casting about in the dark. Nevertheless, we fully accept that some measure of general control on the Border is essential, and we have made useful progress. Mobile patrols continue to pay frequent visits to all points along the Border; while at the same time we have blocked a large number of unauthorised crossing places. I cannot pretend that this latter action has made it quite impossible to make an unauthorised crossing of the Border, but it helps us to limit the number of points at which such crossings can be made—and supports the more precise operations which are mounted on the basis of intelligence.
The least satisfactory aspect of the Border has been the increasing extent to which groups of terrorists operating from South of the Border have carried out hit-and-run raids into Northern Ireland—often aimed at easy targets, such as members of the police and the Ulster Defence Regiment in their own homes. These attacks are as vicious and cowardly as anything that we have seen from the I.R.A. in the past year, but they are clearly difficult to combat so long as the perpetrators are able to return to a safe base across the Border. We have of course asked the authorities in Dublin to take vigorous and effective action, as much in their own interest as in ours; and, as I say, the arrests by the Gardai in Dundalk, to which I have already referred, are a welcome sign that action is in hand. In saying this, it is not my intention, of course, to interfere in the internal affairs of the Republic. But when continuous raids are being conducted over this section of the Border,

833
leaving every sort of terror and destruction in their wake, we clearly have a legitimate interest in what is being done to prevent them.
Another very important theme in the campaign against terrorists is that of propaganda. It is perfectly clear, and will be clear to all your Lordships, that the I.R.A. realise the importance of public opinion, and they go to great lengths to put about distorted accounts of the situation and of the operations against them. Indeed, senior officers serving in Northern Ireland have commented more than once that the I.R.A. seem at times to be conducting a propaganda war with a certain amount of shooting and bombing in support of it, rather than vice versa—and there is clearly a grain of truth in this. We are equally aware of the importance of this factor, and a great deal has been done to ensure that this propaganda is shown up as the lie that it is, and that the truth goes on the record. But this is not easy. It is sadly true, as all of us know, that sensational allegations are more likely to catch the headlines than accurate statements of fact showing that an allegation is untrue.
There are those who argue that, when one is dealing with a ruthless enemy, one cannot afford the risk of allowing their publicity to gain the initiative, and that one should therefore resort to some form of censorship. My Lords, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that, though I understand this line of thought, I do not agree with it. I believe that the responsibility for deciding what should or should not be published or shown should be, and is best, firmly placed on editors, commentators and reporters themselves, relying on their sense of responsibility. I believe also that one can, and should, rely on the good sense of the public to distinguish between what is true and what is untrue, and to make known in no uncertain fashion their opinion of those editors, reporters and producers who make the wrong decision.
My Lords, while these particular aspects are all very important factors in the security situation, there can be no doubt—and here I agree entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Longford—that the central problem is the present antagonism of a large part of the Catholic community for the Northern Ireland Government and for the forces of law and order. It may
834
be thought—and certainly I myself think—that this antagonism is quite irrational. I really do not see how these people can believe that, without the terrorists, they would be in any danger of attack from any quarter, least of all from the British Army. But, irrational or not, this fear is a fact—and so is the hate and bitterness which stems from it. Of course, intimidation by the I.R.A. plays a part, but the sad fact is that, for reasons that go beyond intimidation, a sizeable part of the Catholic community is sympathetic to the terrorists and is willing, in varying degrees, to afford them shelter, and even positive assistance.
All the experience of previous campaigns against internal subversion and insurgency—and, indeed, for that matter, common sense—shows that there is a limit to the ability of the security forces to eliminate terrorism altogether unless and until one can isolate the terrorists from the rest of the community; and I believe that this is the position in which we now are in Northern Ireland. The key question, therefore, must be how to regain the confidence of the Catholic community—and this is a question which goes much beyond the purely military field and involves the whole question of politics. I think there is general recognition for the argument that the Catholic community in Northern Ireland are entitled to expect some significant measure of political change and that it is only through such change that the confidence of that community can be regained. Certainly that view is accepted by the present Northern Ireland Government, as well as by all Parties at Westminster. The difficulty comes in deciding what the change should be and when it should be made—and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, had some things to say about timing in the present circumstances.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has put forward some suggestions of a kind which he believes might allow us to make some progress on the political front, and these will be commented on (if he will excuse me from doing so) by my noble friend Lord Windlesham in the light of other speeches which your Lordships will make during the debate; and, of course, we have had a very wide range of options proposed to us from many quarters, not least in some admirable newspaper editorials—for example,

835
in The Times on December 18 and in the Guardian only this Monday. And, of course, we have ourselves been thinking about this problem for a very long time. I do not think that it would be possible for me to analyse at this moment all these proposals, but there are some fundamental principles which I believe it is worth repeating, since we lose sight of them at our peril.
There are three points about which the Government's position is perfectly clear. First, there can be no concession to violence and terrorism. If there are to be changes, it must be because the changes are justified on their merits and not simply because they offer a possibility of placating the gunmen for a little while. Second, on the question of possible unification, there can be no question of forcing the majority of people in Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom against their wishes. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his speech at the Guildhall on November 15:
"If at some future date the majority of the people in Northern Ireland want unification and express that desire in the appropriate constitutional manner, I do not believe any British Government would stand in the way".
On this point, the noble Earl, in his speech, reiterated that this indeed was his view of the situation, too.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I just cut in? I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, who has been very generous about me, but I would go a lot further than that personally, and also I would venture to suggest that Mr. Wilson has gone a lot further than that. He has treated unification as the eventual goal: not as something which is not to be resisted, but as something desirable in itself.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl misunderstands me. What I was saying— and I hope I understood him aright— was that there was no question of forcing the people of Northern Ireland into Southern Ireland against their will. I was not asking him to agree with the Prime Minister's words.
I think we can all agree— and certainly Mr. Faulkner has said that he agrees— that the reunification of Ireland is a respectable aspiration and a legitimate political aim for any citizen of
836
Northern Ireland to hold, provided that he does not believe in bringing it about unconstitutionally— and this, of course, is a very important point in what I shall be coming to now. But however much one may include the question of future reunification in the agenda for talks and discussion, the fact remains that at present the majority in Northern Ireland most emphatically do not wish to leave the United Kingdom; and, that being the case, there really does not seem much to be gained from discussion about it as a short-term possibility. Such discussion distracts attention from the real and immediate need, which is to achieve a climate of reconciliation and reconstruction within Northern Ireland.
The third main point is that, so long as Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom, the form in which it is governed must be one which is broadly acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland and also to the Parliament and people of Britain. The Government have undertaken, and mean to ensure, that the minority community in the Province will have an active, permanent and guaranteed place in the government of the Province, and this clearly implies that some changes must be brought about in the governmental system in Northern Ireland. But this leaves the question of the form which these changes should take.
This leaves open a wide range of options. Some are totally unacceptable to one side or the other, some may be acceptable. In so far as it is possible, we should have liked to see the changes and the new arrangements stem from ideas put forward by the people of Northern Ireland themselves, since it is they who will have to live with them. At the same time, the British Government do have a direct responsibility in the matter, since while Northern Ireland continues to be part of the United Kingdom it is out of the question for its system of government to be incompatible with the constitutional arrangements in the rest of the kingdom or repugnant to British parliamentary and public opinion. Thus, my Lords, the acid test of any proposal, new or old, for a settlement of the problem of Northern Ireland is its acceptability. Any lasting settlement must come about by agreement, but it is very difficult to reach agreement, or to know

837
which of the many options may be acceptable, unless the parties come together as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said and talk about them.
It is scarcely our fault if we have not yet succeeded. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has tried over and over again to bring the parties together around the table. But time and again he has met with refusal from one or other of the parties to participate without preconditions. My Lords, how does one in fact set about conducting discussions when those who claim to represent one community either refuse to participate or insist on rigid preconditions?
The attitude of the Protestant community in recent months has been one of commendable self-control and patience. I am confident that this will remain the position, especially in view of the Government's reaffirmation that unification with the Republic can come only when the majority want it. But patience and restraint are not all that we must ask of the Protestants. We must also ask them to be realistic and to be prepared to talk with their Catholic fellow citizens about the future— and not least the political future. It is entirely in their own interests that they should do so; for unless the canker of the minority's bitterness and resentment can be healed, we may all be sure that this will not be the last eruption of violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland.
My Lords, the difficulties in achieving political advance are thus truly formidable and it would be a great mistake to underestimate them. The security forces for their part will maintain the pressure on the terrorists, while continuing to adapt their tactics to changes and improvements in the situation. At the same time we shall continue to encourage discussions about how to secure a proper place for the minority in the life of the Province— while continuing to uphold the right of the majority to choose whether to remain a part of the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary's invitation to all parties in Northern Ireland to engage in talks remains open. As noble Lords opposite know, we are in touch with the Leader of the Opposition about making a start on inter-Party talks. And we remain in touch with the Irish Government in Dublin.
838
My Lords, the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Salisbury— and I hope it will not be long before we see the noble Marquess back in his place— once, in a fit of deep depression, wrote the following words about Northern Ireland:
"We can keep the peace and we can root out organised crime. But there is no precedent in our history or any other, to teach us that political measures can conjure away hereditary antipathies which are fed by constant agitation.
"The free institutions which sustain the life of a free and united people, sustain also the hatreds of a divided people."
I earnestly hope and believe that that is not true and that to-day a solution to this dreadful problem can be found. It is certainly the intention of the Government to do what is humanly possible to get agreement among the people of Northern Ireland for a peaceful and just settlement. My Lords, we shall need the help of all men, of all Parties and of none, who genuinely wish to find such a solution. I do not think it will be easy, but it can and must be found.
4.25 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, those noble Lords who have so far spoken have spoken so reasonably and moderately that one wonders why a solution cannot be found to the problems of Northern Ireland here and now. Of course when we think of the past and of the statement by a previous Lord Salisbury which was quoted, it is worth recalling that he said this on the occasion of his securing the rejection of the second Home Rule Bill; and noble Lords (reasonable as we all are to-day) do carry some responsibility for the present situation in Northern Ireland. But I do not propose to-day to bring more disagreement among us than I can avoid.
We listened with the greatest interest to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and despite the strength of his personal views on the Anglo-Irish, Protestant-Catholic conflict, I am bound to say that no one has a better appreciation of the differing points of view. I see from my original notes that I had the inclination to say that while he understood the Protestant point of view intellectually, he had some difficulty in doing so emotionally. But having heard his speech, I think that would have been an unfair charge. I think all noble Lords would

839
agree not only on the lucidity and humanity of his remarks but also on their objectivity.
There are one or two points that I should like to make at the beginning. First, I should like to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I do not myself believe that the Irish think that the English hate them. That is my own opinion. There may be some who think this, but I do not think this is generally held to be the case. I would refer briefly to the Lord Chief Justice's Inquiry and I do so mainly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his extreme restraint to-day. It must be very difficult for a Secretary of State for Defence who is responsible for, and must be involved with, the Armed Forces, over whom he presides and whom he serves— for he has a duty to show loyalty to them in circumstances when charges are being freely made— not to seek to combat them fully. It makes it all very much easier for us to say, as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition said in another place, that we should so far as possible in these debates avoid criticisms of the army and await the outcome of the Inquiry. However, I should like to make one point in relation to the Inquiry. The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack was good enough last night to say that he hoped that one of the benefits of this Inquiry— and of this form of Inquiry with its single head in Lord Widgery— is that it will be possible for it to get carried through a great deal more quickly than any other form of Inquiry. This is a powerful argument in support of the Government's handling of this matter. But I should like to know and I asked this of the noble and learned Lord last night so that Ministers should know that I was going to ask it again to-day— when the Scarman Inquiry Report is going to be published.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I am not going to take part in this debate, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would like me to interrupt him now. I happened to meet Mr. Justice Scarman last night. I understand that the Report is about to be signed. Of course, there will be an interval while it is being printed before it can be published, but I understand that it is complete and about to be signed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am very much obliged. It is a measure of the ardour of these inquiries, because nobody is more conscientious than Sir Leslie Scarman. I should not like to think that the Lord Chief Justice of England was going to be tied up for a couple of years investigating this matter, and neither, I am sure, would the noble and learned Lord. I should also like to know perhaps the noble and learned Lord can also tell me this— when the Parker Inquiry, on which my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner is serving, will publish its Report.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, if we can help the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, twice within a matter of a few moments, I think that we should do so. I can tell the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has now received the Report and that it will be published shortly.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the word "shortly" has been used with regard to the investigation into the rebuilding of Whitehall. None the less, I am grateful. Probably I owe it particularly to the Lord Chancellor that such answers are so readily available and for the fact that on this occasion the Government should spring to answer some of these easier questions— but I am none the less grateful.
My Lords, having dealt with those relatively minor points, I have some criticisms to make of the Government. I ask them to believe me when I say that in making these criticisms I am well aware that similar criticisms might have been made of a Labour Government in these circumstances though for reasons which I hope I shall make clear I think that criticism of a Labour Government might be in another direction. I do not make these criticisms in order to score off the Government. Listening to the debate, and observing the degree of agreement and reasonableness, I would ask why it is that it has not been possible to bring about improvements. Why is it that, consistently, the situation has escalated and the dangers have grown greater?
When we debated this subject last September I said that I thought it particularly important that we should show great restraint in what we had to say;

841
that we should tread carefully because, in the words of Mr. Bleakley, we were treading on the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that the time has now come when we must be prepared to say exactly what we think, to make criticisms where they are due, in an attempt still to find a solution. Last night the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack revealed certain information in regard to the Inquiry, and to-day the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, gave a very succinct account, and pointed out why it had not been possible to initiate these all-important inter-Party talks. I do not believe— no one has suggested it — that there is any single sweeping solution to the Irish problem. But I do believe that the Government have not shown the imagination, the energy, even the concentration, that they should, and I will seek to demonstrate that in what I have to say on this matter.
It is extremely difficult for busy Departmental Ministers to give the undivided concentration that I believe it is necessary to give to a problem as acute and specialised as that of Northern Ireland. As we all know, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has occasionally had to concern himself with another island; namely, Malta. And busy Departmental Ministers are not able to give the concentration which I believe is called for to a problem of this kind. The Home Secretary, nice, liberal man as he is, is not renowned— I regret having to say this— for his drive and his energy. This is a valid criticism of the Government, because I believe that their particular style in this area is not appropriate as would be that of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Callaghan. I say to noble Lords— because I have some suggestions to make in regard to this matter— that greater efforts have to be made. I do not say that one should actually kidnap the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the Opposition Party, but greater efforts have to be made to find a way through this impasse. There is no doubt that there is an appearance of supineness, justified or otherwise.
The Government may point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and with perfect fairness, to the steps that they have taken. They may point to the Northern Ireland Government's White Paper on some of the reforms that have taken
842
place. But the fact remains that every time we discuss reforms it is too late; and once again, my Lords, it is going to be too late. I shall say a few words at the end of my speech regarding the steps which the Government might take.
It is one of the advantages of the debate to-day that all the previous speakers have not sought to go over the previous ground. In fact, we in this House have moved on and we are debating the situation as it is. For that reason, I will not, any more than did the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others, indulge in a tirade against the I.R.A. It is not that I do not condemn then crimes, like every other Member of your Lordships' House. It is because it is futile to do so. It is the fact, and an undisputable one, that since internment there has been the increasing alienation, to which the noble Lord referred, between the Army and the Catholic population. The tragedy is that as the conflict grows, people find themselves compelled to line up on one side or another, however much they may not want to do so. This is only too painfully true in Irish history; and it is this polarisation to which my noble friend referred that produces actions which seem incredible.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to the reaction after the executions in the 1916 rebellion. It is the fact that it is always the actions of the British that are remembered. I speak as one who sometimes claims to be an Irishman, because my family are Irish. The execution of Erskine Childers is sometimes forgotten. I am not mentioning that as "tit for tat". Or, indeed, the murder of that great man Michael Collins, and Griffiths. One wonders whether the killing is ever going to stop and whether people will be able to look at the situation rationally.
I do not believe now, any more than I did last autumn, that it is possible to remove internment. But it is arguable that the Catholic population would have found the level of violence which the I.R.A. have produced completely unacceptable if it were not for internment which has driven the Catholic community in the towns into a position which has led to the confrontation between the Army and the Catholic community in the ghettoes. The situation in the ghettoes is not typical of the whole of Northern

843
Ireland. To-day, there are large numbers of Catholics and Protestants living in the countryside who, although more split than before, still manage to live peaceably together.
I have dealt with the need for greater energy by the Home Secretary or by someone else, and I should like to deal now with another of the obstacles to the talks. The particular difficulty is the inability of the Northern Irish politicians to reflect, accurately and in enough breadth, the whole position at any one moment. There is no doubt that the elected leaders of the Catholic community do represent those Catholics in the ghettoes, as indeed do some of the extreme leaders of the Protestant community. But, as I have had confirmed by Irish Catholics, as well as Protestants, I think that there are large numbers of Catholics and Protestants who are not fully represented. This is what happens in a democracy when extreme views are developed: it loses that element of representation, and some are not fully represented by those who are in fact speaking in their name. That applies, I believe, to both the main Parties. Then, of course, the single-minded energy of the more extreme leaders gradually pulls the more moderate leaders into extreme positions. This is the classic state of affairs in a revolutionary situation.
Yet another obstacle is the language which they use— there is nothing that we or the Government can do about this— which certainly magnifies the areas of disagreement. Perhaps the greatest example of this is the insistence by many anti-Unionist politicians that Stormont in its present form must be abolished. Yet, equally, many Unionists are recognising the need for restructuring Stormont. It seems intolerable that it is not possible to bring the two sides together on this point. Here again, it is the emotional factors, such as internment, and that people have got themselves into positions from which they cannot or dare not move, that are rocking the boat. The differences between the moderate Unionists and the Social Democratic and Labour Party are not so great as they appear to be. It is a pity that one cannot face this fact. Dr. Connor Cruise O'Brien has rather neatly described this unfortunate phenomenon as "the problem of the sectarian dialect". Then there is the pathological
844
dislike by certain of the leaders for one another. Whatever Mr. Heath and Mr. Wilson think about one another, they are at least prepared to co-operate in Parliamentary terms. Clearly, in no negotiations can one veto the other side's spokesman, especially when both have been elected at a previous General Election, however unsatisfactory the nature of the structure under which they are operating.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to the banning of marches by Mr. Faulkner, with the approval of the British Government. Of course a year or two years ago everybody would have applauded this decision and said,"That will stop the Orange parades"—and when I say "everybody", I mean of course those people who are opposed to the Orangemen. I think this was a courageous action. But I am bound to say— I know it is easy to be wise after the event, but it so happens that these views were expressed to me before— that its wisdom was open to doubt. It was a very difficult decision. It is possible that a measure of control during the marching season would have been accepted. While Protestant opinion is incensed by anti-internment marches, and Catholic opinion is incensed by Orange parades around the fringes of the Catholic areas, it is the opinion of some people that neither community really objects to traditional parades. A blanket ban has the great advantage of appearing to be non-discriminatory; but, as was suggested to me only three days before the troubles in Derry, in order to enforce this ban it would be necessary to use a degree of force which would not usually be acceptable. This, painfully, is what has happened.
In this present situation, and because of the events in Deny not only the people of Northern Ireland and Derry but, above all, the British Army, are deserving of our sympathy. Whatever else happens, the Army have been ordered to be there. For what they are doing we carry responsibility. Whereas, again, we do not want to pay what might be called ritual, albeit sincere, tributes to the British Army, at least they do not shoot individuals in the back while at work: they do not murder people in front of their families; and in my experience they have generally observed standards that could not be equalled by any other Army. But the fact is that in a situation

845
of this kind terrible things happen—and we shall know the truth of some of this when the Tribunal reports.
Let me touch briefly on some constructive points. It is a pity that we have not more time to debate this, but I know that the Government are providing a great deal of generous economic help, some of which is to be administered in Northern Ireland in a way which is apparently totally unacceptable to the Conservative Government in this country, by means of investment grants, the equivalent of the I.R.C. Obviously, the Northern Ireland Tories are a great deal more progressive than Her Majesty's Government in these matters. Why these particular devices are suitable for Northern Ireland and not for this country, I do not know. It is the fact, as I understand, that productivity has been rising faster in Northern Ireland than it has in most parts of Britain. But of course this does not help the unemployment situation. There are many other constructive proposals, some of which are under way, which I have not time to discuss. But I want to come back to the political proposals. I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would agree— as indeed I think we all should— that, however successful he may think the military operations are, they are not by themselves a solution to the problem.
I now come back to the political solutions and the sort of package which my right honourable friend Mr. Wilson put forward. I really believe that that was a remarkable and valuable set of proposals, and I would again ask noble Lords who have not read his speech made in another place in December, to do so. My noble friend Lord Longford, like many people, clearly hopes to see a united Ireland. I should like to see a united Ireland. But we are all agreed that there can be no question of coercion. This my noble friend has said. Where perhaps I differ from my noble friend is that, while I believe that a united Ireland must be on the agenda (it will not be possible to have talks without that matter being on the agenda; and other people will have to swallow other things), I am doubtful in the extreme, particularly since recent events, that in the event we shall see a united Ireland in our lifetime. I
846
deeply regret it. Nor will it be possible, as some people may think, that the withdrawal of the British Army will bring a united Ireland. It will not: it will in fact confirm more strongly than ever a sectarian domination in Northern Ireland. And I hope this remark, which may give offence to some people, will not distract us from the fact that there is a need for concessions also in the South of Ireland. My right honourable friend referred in his list of proposals to the differences between North and South in regard to such matters as censorship, contraceptives, and indeed the action, as some people will remember, that was taken with regard to Dr. Browne's Bill— The Family and Child Bill— some years ago under the not too successful Government of Mr. Costello and Mr. Sean MacBride, when they were told by the hierarchy not to proceed with the Bill. These things are known and constantly repeated in Northern Ireland. Yet the fact is that changes have taken place in the South. For instance, I understand that it is no longer necessary to get a dispensation for an Irish Roman Catholic to go to Trinity College, Dublin. English Roman Catholics were always free to go. This requirement has been changed in the last two years. Roman Catholic Bishops have themselves said that if the people want it, and it is a matter of choice, divorce and contraception should be available. I do not want to make too much of this matter, but because we should face all the issues I think it is one which needs to be got out of the way. I should therefore hope that when the present agony and storm following the Derry riot and the Derry killings has died down, the Republican Government— and I think we should all pay great tribute to the courage and liberality of Mr. Lynch— will be willing to publish their constitutional proposals.
I will touch on only three points very briefly. First of all, there is a real argument in favour of transferring responsibility for security to Westminster, first on grounds of appearances, so that it is not thought— and I do not believe it to be true anyway— that the Army is proceeding at the bidding of Mr. Faulkner, and secondly because it is for Whitehall and the British Government to take responsibility in certain policy areas that lead to security issues. We should

847
be sharing more strongly the responsibility regarding, for instance, the decisions on bans on marches.
This leads me to my other proposal which the noble Earl is aware of. Because I criticise the Government as regards the energy and concentration they are bringing to bear on this matter, I would press for the appointment of, if not a sort of "Cabinet Minister in command", of a Minister with some responsibility— a Minister of State, if one can find a suitable Minister, perhaps even a Catholic Minister; a Minister who concentrates wholly on the problem of Northern Ireland, perhaps partly living over there but all the time opening up communications and informing the Government of what is going on. My experience is that busy Ministers and often busy civil servants miss some of the finer points of a situation.
There are other ideas, my Lords. It may be that we could find a Commonwealth figure who could help to mediate and again add to the communication. But, whatever we do, I think we need to accept that we have to stand by the 1969 Attlee Declaration, that we have to open our position much more widely than we have done already. We should be willing to bring about or at least to encourage, if it were possible, a united Ireland— which I should personally favour though I am gloomy about the prospects— and above all we should seek within the next year or two to carry through the structural reforms which would ensure that when the next Election comes along, or sooner than that, there is the chance of the type of Government to which my noble friend Lord Longford referred, which will not be polarised just between two Parties. May I ask the noble Lord when he comes to reply why, if Stormont do not move, we cannot have legislation in this Parliament? Has legislation even been drafted? I beg the Government to show a greater degree of activity, so that in a few months' time we do not have to meet again and say it is all too late.
4.57 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I well imagine that when the noble Earl, Lord Longford, put this Motion down for debate he did not think it would be one that we should be debat-
848
ing to-day; and with him, and those who have spoken so far, I want to make the key word of what I say, "restraint". It is perhaps almost asking for trouble for an English Churchman, in a sense, to comment upon the affairs of Ireland. There is, however, only one desire that I have, as an English Churchman, and it is one shared by every Member of your Lordships' House: to seek to strengthen the hands of those Christians and Churches in Northern Ireland who are working to find peaceful solutions in this very difficult situation in which they find themselves. As a Churchman, I desire not to interfere but to understand; and if that is possible in the new and tangled situation in which we find ourselves now, then this is something which all of us desperately need to do. To appear to interfere, as a Churchman, would do harm because we well recognise that English people and successive English Governments do not have a good record in solving Irish problems. There are many good reasons for believing that these problems can be solved only by Irishmen, the citizens both of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Eire.
My Lords, with those who have already spoken, I look forward (perhaps with not quite as much gloom as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton) to the days when there may be a united Ireland. That the position has been changed in that part of Ireland— Northern Ireland— is clear; but Northern Protestants are still, quite rightly, insistent upon certain considerable relaxations on the part of the Catholics before this kind of proposal would be even considered. I try to ask myself, as I seek to understand the situation, what lies behind so much of what has been happening. The first thing I would say is that I have to remember that Northern Ireland was created as an entity within the United Kingdom with the sole purpose of maintaining the Protestant faith. It stemmed from revolt, and from the very beginning Roman Catholics— let us face it— were, and sometimes are, an unwelcome minority. The central issue was the maintenance of the Protestant régime, and that was the sole aim of politics. In recent times this has been remarkably shown in the reaction to the programmes and policies of (as he now is) the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine. He was the first Unionist Prime Minister— and all honour to him

849
for it!— to seek Roman Catholic support and to try to introduce modest social reforms. As I understand it, as soon as it was recognised that the implications of these reforms were a régime seeking Roman Catholic support, he was rejected.
Secondly, I recognise that both Eire and Northern Ireland were established by violent means and with a threat of violence. It has remained true that the attack is on the régime, not on any part of its programmes or intentions. For Eire, any constitutional association with the United Kingdom was unacceptable. For Ulster any constitutional link with Dublin was similarly impossible. The attack is on the régime, and not on its merits or demerits. This has meant that the régime has responded violently. By definition, the Roman Catholics in Ulster must be subversive. "Justice" is assessed in these terms: right or wrong take their meaning from these criteria. The alternatives offered in Northern Ireland are alternative régimes, not alternative programmes.
The tragedy all the way along, and still to-day, is that the main lines of social division are religious and national. It has meant that it has been almost impossible to meet people in a different and maybe conflicting group. Protestants meet each other in their churches and their related social clubs and organisations; so do the Roman Catholics. And how rarely do people meet across denominational barriers with a common purpose which transcends them all! Yet there is an institutional aloofness of all the Churches from the Government structures. The Cardinal and the Roman Catholic bishops have avoided supporting the régime, and equally, until this weekend, have avoided supporting those whose illegal actions were meant to overthrow it. Protestant churches, while joining in condemning lawlessness, have not managed to restrain the extremists in their congregations; and their Ministers sometimes appear in ecumenical settings and sometimes as chaplains of the Orange Order. I believe that one line which must be pursued is the multiplication of occasions of meeting, for other than religious and political purposes, of Roman Catholics and Protestants. Education is an obvious mix-up. I believe that one of the needs of Northern Ireland is the
850
doing away with the denominational schools— an idea of which many Roman Catholics are in favour. The drive towards the opening of universities for all who seek admission is something which can produce only cross-fertilisation. The trade unions and kindred industrial organisations provide other opportunities; and so do social work and social services of a voluntary but non-secretarian order.
All this, my Lords, appears to favour secularisation, and in the present Northern Ireland situation I believe that secularisation may possibly be closer to the will of God than Church allegiance. The churches in Northern Ireland are full Sunday by Sunday; but how sad that there is so little evidence of that reconciliating spirit which comes from the Master they seek to serve and worship! Yet a new ecumenical spirit is at work: churches have condemned religious discrimination; they are beginning to practise mutual visitation and joint meetings for prayers; the Churches' Industrial Council includes Roman Catholics; there is a growth of bodies pledged to the task of reconciliation. All this is commendable, but so much more is needed before they match the influence of the Paisley adherents, the Sinn Fein, the I.R.A., the Orange Order, and the Unionist Party.
Here may I join with those who have already paid tribute to the British Army in the arduous and thankless tasks which have been placed upon them. I think sometimes it can be forgotten that that Army has itself undertaken a good deal of work in community relationships. At one time, certainly, it was the success of that effort which provoked the I.R.A. wrath. All this work must be accompanied by a search for social and political solution. In this search I believe that the Church, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, has a substantial lead which it can give, if only it will. Tribal memories are notoriously long, and tribal conflicts between people of the same race are markedly bitter. But people can rise above them and create a larger community. One of the big tragedies of to-day, accentuated by the events of this past week-end, is that there has been a development of a new kind of folklore around the activities and alleged cruelties by the military and the police. This is being inflamed and is

851
desperately dangerous. It leads to further entrenchment in positions taken up, which makes discussion absolutely impossible. In spite of what has happened, there must be a fresh beginning in this troubled State.
Perhaps the heaviest responsibility of all lies on the Protestant Church in taking initiatives which show not only a concern for the needs of the minority but a compassion and understanding. The timing of these steps is important, I fully agree. But should there not now be a concentration of Christian people to see what must be done to meet the legitimate requirements of the Roman Catholic minority, while they (the Roman Catholics) must get out of entrenched positions and prepare to meet Protestant initiatives halfway? Wishful thinking? Crying for the impossible? No, my Lords, not if, in sincerity, both sides seek the mind and will of the Christ whom they seek to serve, and are ready to be led not by history or the agony of the moment, or the bigotries and biases from the past, but by Him who for Christians is always pointing the way to the future.
5.10 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, as a Back-Bencher Cross-Bencher, and in view of the length of the list of speakers, I feel it is my duty to try to be as brief as possible and therefore I will, with your Lordships' permission, omit the normal courtesies and compliments which come at the beginning of speeches and go straight to the matter. I must, with respect, pick up the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on one point. It is no good seeking to belittle what happened at the week-end, not because it involved an immense number of people or is immensely important, as one might say, statistically in the history of the world, but because it will become a piece of legend in Irish history. I am afraid that this is unavoidable, partly because certain determined people are determined that it shall be so, and partly also because Irish history, as everybody knows, is a strange and unique compound of history and legend.
I have been speaking with a great many people and listening to many things in the last few days and I find one common denominator to which I will try to stick. The common denominator is
852
that everybody is saying to everybody else, "What should we do now?" In the light of that, I thought I would try to raise one point about talks and hope that the Minister who closes the debate will be able to comment upon it. I should then like to give one warning and then make a general statement in conclusion.
On talks, from my experience of international affairs I wonder whether it is possible to start, as it were, from the other end. The nightmare of the moment is that the Government and others would like to have talks and are being quite reasonable about it, but there seems no prospect whatever that in the immediate future this particular boat will get off the rocks, because certain people who are considered vital to the talks refuse to come. I wonder very much whether there might not be some possibility of those who are willing to talk starting to do so, and be known to be talking about these great issues. I assume that this would include our three great political Parties; I assume it would include Mr. Faulkner and the Northern Ireland Government; it might include, or be made to include, certain eminent private individuals, particularly if they were Catholic, in Northern Ireland. At some stage, though it might be difficult at this immediate moment, it would include representatives from the Irish Republic.
There are two possible objections to this. One is that the people who chose not to come would repudiate the talks and all their deeds, and the second is that this would mean fairly immediate confrontation. The answer to the first objection is that this is quite true, but talks have a curious way of attracting people who started by refusing to attend. I do not in any way assure your Lordships that this would be the effect, but in this present, stuck situation it might be worth trying. At least it would give the public the feeling that some of the distinguished and responsible people who have this matter very much to heart, and who have it as their responsibility, were formally talking to each other. On the point of confrontation, that will of course have to come in anyway. There is no avoiding a confrontation of view whenever you start, and if it comes earlier rather than later, well, this is one of those hurdles that will have to be got over

853
at some time or another. There may be very good reasons why this cannot happen. Equally, it may quietly be happening—on this I have no knowledge. But I would appreciate it if the Minister felt able to make some comment on this suggestion.
If I may make a reference to the agenda of such talks, it would have to include absolutely everything. It would certainly include the proposals that have been made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford— and may I pay a tribute to what I would call the truly Christian spirit in which he put them forward. I would find it difficult to advocate that the Government should espouse unification, but it certainly should be on the agenda of these talks. There should also be on the agenda of these talks some of the rather frightening alternatives between that and the status quo, such as what I think is called surgery and movement of population. I mention that because it shows just how drastic that alternative would be. There would also be, of course, talk about the new Constitution for Northern Ireland on the assumption that a Northern Ireland Constitution will continue for some time to come.
On that, perhaps I might say just a word of comfort to any of your Lordships who may be worried about the not fully democratic nature of an artificial Constitution. This is a real worry, but there are instances in the world where there are in Constitutions regarded as democratic features which are not in themselves totally democratic. For instance, the Constitution of the United States Senate has nothing whatever to do with "one man, one vote"; it is entirely based on history and geography, and there are States, or certainly one State, with a population in six figures which has as many votes in the Senate as does the State of New York, with many millions. There is, for instance, in the Republic of Lebanon a convention by which the Head of the State is normally a Christian and the Prime Minister is normally a Muslim. So there exist around the world arrangements by which people of different religions or in a special geographical situation can have a specially arranged position, accepted by everybody, under a Constitution which looks slightly undemocratic but in fact is regarded and accepted as democratic by all. The talks would also include, I suppose, a comprehensive
854
system of aid in which all might take part. And to pick up a suggestion in which I would not go quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, there could be a European element. That would be my feeling on what the talks could do. This again I am quite prepared to concede might all have been thought of already. But I have formulated it in this way to try to give a suggestion of what might conceivably happen, rather than nothing happening at all.
There is a warning about this which, curiously, I do not think has been explicitly mentioned so far. The people who are upset with this country include a large number of people who would wish they were not, and a small number of people who will be anxious that no initiative of this kind shall succeed. There is of course one person well known to us who I think, if I got it right, told us on the television that the objective was the destruction of three communities: Britain, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. There are these views which will go on all the time there is any discussion. This makes the psychological task of the Government, to which I shall come back, extremely difficult.
If I may give an immediate warning, because I think it bears on the situation in the next few days, I do not hear used very much a word which used to be used a great deal in Ireland at one time, the word "coat-trailing". I am convinced that one of the tactics which underlay the events leading up to the Londonderry catastrophe is the psychology that if you do something a little bit illegal or a little bit wrong, the other side can be counted on to do something much worse and then you can blame them. This is a well known tactic and I am sure that it underlies a certain kind of thinking with which we are concerned. I mention it because it is very important that people who are very well-meaning in their feelings about this whole controversy should not be taken in and be made the victims of coat-trailing.
I am particularly anxious to associate myself with what the Secretary of State for Defence said about the proposed march at Newry this weekend. I implore people whom I do not know, and with whom I do not think I necessarily share political views, to realise that they may be the victims of coat-trailing and that

855
if there is another disaster the blood of other people will be debited to their account.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: May I interrupt the noble Lord to confirm that what he has said is perfectly true? I am an Irish Peer and my knowledge of Ireland is not enormous, yet I know that it is a well-known Irish tactic which has been going on for centuries. The description "coat-trailing" is exactly right.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: I am grateful indeed to my distinguished relative the noble Earl for his comment. This brings me to my final reflection, and I have some hesitation in raising it at all. I feel again in my position that it is not quite appropriate for me, but the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised it in a felicitous way in this very unfelicitous situation. Unfortunately, too many people in Ireland think that we hate them. I am entirely with the noble Lord in what he said about this and I am sure it is right. There is a lot of history behind this, but it is not an insuperable problem. I join with those noble Lords who have suggested that perhaps the Government could adopt a somewhat different style in their dealings with Ireland. The whole history of Ireland is littered with people who were reasonable, tried to be just and were a bit formal, but somehow the communication did not exist.
I should like to think that the Government were putting into their public posture and utterances something of the feeling of affection which most of us have for the people of Ireland as people— not the terrorists—for there is something about Irishmen which appeals to people in England and people in England feel very frustrated when this appreciation is not understood. I am not in a position to suggest how this could be done, but I think there is something lacking here. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, suggested that there should be a special Minister who could concentrate on this affair. The noble Lord was much too modest to say that he did precisely that, with great success, in the negotiations with Aden at a crucial point. This may be the right way, but always in Government in these situations one has to weigh the specialised knowledge of the Minister who does this against necessity for the
856
matter to be essentially the responsibility of a Minister who carries the authority, whether the Prime Minister or one of the very senior Ministers in the Cabinet. Whether the two work slightly against each other I am not sure, but I am sure that the suggestion of a concentration is at least worth consideration.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: While agreeing with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has said about our attitude to the Irish, will he also say that this must be a two-way traffic and that they must cease throwing fire bombs at British property?
LORD GORE-BOOTH: I am afraid that, like too many British spokesmen, I have taken that for granted, but the noble Lord is quite right and I am grateful to him for pointing this out. Finally, I should simply like to echo one thing which was said by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. That is, that although these things look very grave and we seem to be making no progress and things get worse, like other noble Lords I refuse to give up. Perhaps this is a case where:
"Out of the nettle danger we pluck the flower, safety".
Surely this must be the last time when the British and the Irish, with faults on both sides, get across each other. Perhaps this grim weekend is a reminder of how active and how conscientious, and, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, how personally Christian—or, if we are not personally Christian, how humane—we have to be in our approach. If we can do this intelligently in the years ahead we may reach the result for which we devoutly pray.
5.26 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I want to be very careful indeed in what I say. Therefore I am going to ask the House to excuse me if I keep to my notes more than I usually do when I am speaking. As is generally known, I was in Londonderry last Sunday, but I do not want to describe to the House now what I saw and what I experienced. I think the right place to do so is at the Tribunal of the Lord Chief Justice, if I am invited to give evidence to it. I regret that that Tribunal is limited to one person. I should have preferred, in view of the intimate concern of the Republic of Ireland, and indeed the interest all

857
over the world, that it had included international jurists. But, while saying that, I think those of us who did see and experience what happened on Sunday should take an opportunity to give their evidence.
I have to acknowledge that I refrain with considerable difficulty from making any reply to some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said from the Front Bench. I have no doubt that he spoke with absolute sincerity, believing that he was describing the truth of what happened on Sunday in Derry. He would have to rely upon the reports that he received. I only make the comment that I was there, and I reject the truth of those reports and shall welcome an opportuinty of indicating what happened when I meet the Tribunal.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, if I might interject at this point, could the noble Lord tell me exactly why he was taking part in this march on "Bloody Sunday", which was in defiance of the law—
LORD SHACKLETON: It was not.
LORD LOVAT: —and further in defiance of a ban on taking part in any political meeting? Would he not suggest that any irresponsible remark of this kind at a political meeting in the present thunderflash atmosphere is just as dangerous as pulling a trigger?
NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD BROCKWAY: The noble Lord has got it wrong. I shall proceed to indicate exactly why I was there and it will be a direct denial of the statement that I went to take part in the march, or that I did so.
My Lords, perhaps I should add to what I have already said, lest there be any misunderstanding, lest it is thought that I have been guilty of any reprehensible inconsistency, that before the Tribunal was announced I dictated a detailed and I hope objective and sober description for an article which will appear in the Tribune. As I say, that was done before the Tribunal was announced, and it was not intended to be in any way an affront to the partially sub judice interval before Lord Widgery begins his Inquiry.
As a Member of this House I think perhaps it is due to your Lordships that I should explain the reason for my visit to Derry. I was invited there by the
858
Civil Rights Association to take part in a meeting which was acceptably legal. I laid down the condition that I should not take part in the illegal march, and I informed the Home Secretary, Mr. Reginald Maudling, of my intention. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, with his usual friendliness, came to see me, and no objection was raised to my going to Derry in the circumstances of speaking only at a legal meeting. My Lords, while I regard the right to take part in marches as an essential of a democratic society, and while I have no doubt that the Civil Rights Association intended it to be peaceful, I realised that violence might occur by those who could not be controlled, and it was for this reason, because I did not want to be responsible in any way for the encouragement of violence, that I declined to be involved in any way in the illegal march.
The original intention was to hold the meeting at the Guildhall, but when the approaches to it were cut off, both for the speakers and the audience, the plan was changed so that it might take place in a large open space nearly half a mile away from the military barrier and from where violence was occurring. I am used to the game of Rugby football, and I would say that the size of that open space was three lengths of a Rugby pitch and nearly half a mile—quiet, isolated—from the violence that was taking place. I will refrain from describing what disrupted that peaceful scene and that peaceful meeting until I have an opportunity to give evidence to the Lord Chief Justice.
My Lords, not only one who has followed Irish history but anyone who was present at the events last Sunday must be overwhelmed in mind and in emotions at what may now happen in Ireland. Derry last Sunday will be to Ireland what Amritsar was to India; what Warsaw was to Poland; what Easter, 1916, in Dublin was to Southern Ireland, and what Sharpeville was to South Africa. We have now reached a psychological situation in Ireland where only the most generous action can break through that terrible division. Believe it or not, my Lords, with the knowledge of that my main purpose is to try to contribute to some solution. There is the danger of bloody confrontation almost immediately in the march that is planned at Newry, this coming week-end. I want to make a

859
suggestion both to the Government and to the Civil Rights Association which could possibly avoid that occurrence, and I beg the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to listen very carefully indeed to the suggestion that I am about to make.
On television last night, the Minister for Development in the Stormont Government (forgive me for not knowing his name) impressed me by the reasonable way in which he put his case. He said there was no reason why the demonstrators at Derry (he said "Londonderry") on Sunday should not have held a meeting rather than a march. He said that a meeting would have been legal. I think he said that 50,000 persons could have attended. As one who was in Derry, I am not sure how such a meeting could have gathered without, in effect, marches taking place. The whole of Creggan would have descended that hill, filling the streets; the whole of Bogside would have gone to such a meeting. In effect, they would have been marches. I am not familiar with the geography of Newry in the same way, although I passed through it on Sunday. But I submit this suggestion: let the Civil Rights Association make its objective a meeting which is legal, rather than a march. Let the Government instruct the authorities in Northern Ireland to discuss with representatives of the Civil Rights Association the arrangements under which this legal meeting might be held.
One cannot say that a meeting is legal without also making it lawful that there should be opportunities to attend that meeting. I suggest that if the Civil Rights Association agreed that its objective was a meeting, agreed to discuss with the Irish authorities the routes and everything else by which those attending the meeting might go to it, then in those circumstances, in legal conditions, it would be a duty for protection to be given to those who were attending the meeting. If this were done, Newry might become an occasion for the beginning of agreement rather than for confrontation and worse disaster.
My Lords. I had intended this evening to put forward a series of constructive proposals which I believe would lead to the political solution which is necessary. I do not intend to do so; there will be other opportunities, and others wish to
860
speak. Perhaps I may indicate broadly what is in my mind most effectively if I read to the House the summary which I gave to the Press Association of what I wanted to say in Londonderry on Sunday. You will see that it is a repudiation of violence and also an appeal for the ending of internment. The few paragraphs read as follows:
"There can be no solution by physical confrontation. Every military escalation by the Government makes the situation worse. Every bomb or death by the I.R.A. intensifies division. A continuation of violence encourages conditions which will bring the extreme Right to power in Northern Ireland.
"The crucial step to a political solution would be the ending of internment, which would open the way for discussions including the Social Democratic and Labour opposition in Stormont. I hope the I.R.A. would call off its actions in the new psychological conditions which would then be created.
"A political solution should include: (1) the repeal of the Special Powers Act and its replacement by an Act of Human Rights, including prohibition of religious discrimination; (21 the introduction of proportional representation in the elections of Stormont and all local authorities; and (3) the establishment of an all-Ireland Council for co-operation in expanding spheres between North and South, leading eventually to the reunification of Ireland."
My Lords, that is what I proposed to say, and I doubt whether there is any Member of the House who would suggest that I should not have the right to say that, even in Londonderry.
There are just two things I wish to say in conclusion. I want to add that the supreme need in Ireland to-day is to bring about unity between the workers—Protestants and Catholics—in Northern Ireland, and between the workers of both North and South. They are in common the victims of appalling unemployment, had housing and poverty. It is tragic that they should be divided by sectarian doctrines rather than united in a common struggle for the opportunities for human life. I take encouragment from the political report to be presented to-day to the Northern Ireland section of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions, and in the North the majority of members are Protestants. Their report endorses most of the proposals which I have ventured to make in this speech.
The second point is just this. I want to conclude by saying that I have as much feeling for individual British soldiers as I have for the Irish people. They are

861
asked now to perform an impossible task. They exist under conditions of intolerable physical and mental strain, long hours patrolling or crouching in the darkness with the possibility of death by a sniper at any moment. Leaving Londonderry on Sunday night one passed through a street where the British soldiers were standing, crouching in doorways, guns at hands, at any moment to meet a sniper, and we were asked in our car to put down our lights for 400 yards while we passed them so that they might not be shot in the brilliance of the light. Of course we did it. But in going through that experience day after day, night after night, week after week, and it may be for some months, control of oneself and control of one's mind must break down. My Lords, the restricted conditions under which the soldiers of the British Army now live are worse than those from which the internees are suffering. If it were merely a matter of physical comfort, I would at the moment rather be an Irish internee than a British soldier. It is for them, as well as for the Irish people, that the sooner a political solution is found the better; but in those circumstances it will be found only by much greater imaginative and generous policies than we have yet received from the Government.
5.48 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, it may be presumptuous of me, but perhaps I may express the feeling of the House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on his extreme restraint when describing events about which he obviously felt so deeply. Of course, as your Lordships will agree, this has been the keynote of all the speeches that have been made. I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long, but I should like to put a slightly different emphasis from that given by the noble Earl who introduced the subject, by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and by other speakers, because I think the determination, the resolution and the purposes of the I.R.A. and the people who work with them are not fully appreciated by the noble Lords that I have mentioned, and not fully appreciated perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I feel that their determination is something which has to be reckoned with. Their determination enables them to use for their own ends
862
people who are saying things and doing things with the very best of intentions.
It is not proper for me to go into, or touch upon, the affairs of last Sunday, and so one cannot elaborate on that particular point. But that can be seen as an example of using people of the most blatant sort. The I.R.A.—and I think there are probably others with them—are such a very real menace at the moment, not only to the people in the North of Ireland but also to the people in the South of Ireland, that the things we do, the actions we take, the advice we give, must surely take full account of this. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that it is a pious hope at this point of time to imagine that everything in the garden will be lovely if, for example, the British Army is removed from the North of Ireland. That, I am sure, would end in the most desperate holocaust.
I think it is quite possible that, by a slow process, the I.R.A. may be more fully brought under control; but, as my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence said, this will never be totally achieved. What is a fact is that, if at all possible, they must not be made to think that they are succeeding. There are those people who, again with the very best of intentions, give them encouragement: by vilifying the British Army; by organising marches on which these people can fasten themselves by not taking the steps that are inecessary to prevent intimidation, or by bowing to them and doing away with internment. I would agree with the noble Lords who question whether internment was wise, but I would not agree with those who say that it should be ended before we have dealt with this very real menace. That is one point.
The next point I should like to make (it was touched on, as always, by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I feel that I must repeat it) is the extreme quality of the British Army that we have to-day. The Fighting Services of this country, at all ranks, are of a higher order of competence and intelligence than ever before in history. I suggest that they are also more competent than any other armed forces of any other nation in the world. We are extremely fortunate to have such a splendid force to take on this very distasteful task, a task that is not made

863
easier when people, again with the best intentions, give encouragement to their enemies—because from the Armed Forces' point of view it is "the enemy". But this very highly trained force, this intelligent force, is one of the rays of hope for the future. The very intelligence that the men are using to carry out their task is, after all, a reflection of the people among whom they are working. The members of the Armed Forces of the Crown are no different from the ordinary run-of-the-mill chap whom one meets in the street; they just happen to be people who have volunteered in one of the arms of the Services because they want a bit of adventure. But basically they are the same sort of people. If, therefore, one can detect—and many people have said this in recent times—a greatly improved intelligence on the part of our soldiers and the way in which they go about their business, perhaps there is hope that this will feed through to the ordinary people of the North of Ireland and the South of Ireland. What we must make quite certain is that those people are not subjected to intimidation, which is the one thing that can corrupt an otherwise determined approach on the part of any man or woman.
The next point I should like to touch upon is this suggestion that the security forces should be controlled from Whitehall. This appears perhaps to do the right thing, in the sense of showing that Whitehall is going to take responsibility. But there are all sorts of areas in which it is not wise to have things centred here. Noble Lords who come from Scotland, Wales, or the regions of England will have had many experiences where things are run worse because they are run from Whitehall.
There is another factor, and that is that when soldiers, or any Services for that matter, are giving aid to the civil power, the rules are that they consult the magistrate. These rules have been in existence for 250 years. The magistrate, 250 years ago, was the local man on the spot; he knew what went on. Our ancestors had a point. As your Lordships will know, before the establishment of local government the magistrate was effectively the local government of the country. It was always he who was put into the position to invoke the Army to come
864
in and aid the civil power. In a sense, in the North of Ireland we have the Prime Minister and his Cabinet who in this respect are functioning like the magistrate. A magistrate is a local person; he knows the local people. I would strongly suggest, therefore, that though it appears a good thing—particularly when looked at from this Chamber—there is really less advantage to be gained by transferring the control of the security forces in some sort of way.
I would also say that the suggestion of a Minister appointed from the Government at Whitehall would not in itself be a particularly good thing. There are two points. One is the fact (and we must face it, and certain noble Lords have touched upon this) that the Irish do not think that the English are very capable at ruling anybody, let alone the Irish. Therefore, they would not necessarily think, any more than they thought when we had a Chief Secretary in Dublin, that this was a good thing and the very best way to do it.
I would suggest one other thing to your Lordships—and I am a little surprised that no noble Lord who has spoken before me has mentioned this—and that is how incredibly lucky we are in the men the people of Northern Ireland have chosen to be their Prime Ministers. Noble Lords have mentioned the two noble Lords who now sit in this Chamber, but they did not mention Mr. Faulkner. I think that it is perhaps a slight oversight not to give real appreciation not only for the courage but for the very good sense of Mr. Faulkner, and, furthermore, to recognise the value of the people who put him there. Though we have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, that we might "monkey around" with the Constitution (and I think this might be a good idea, but that is another subject), it is a fact that Mr. Faulkner is in his position because his Party agreed to put him there, and it is the elected Party of that part of the country.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, after making a reputation for moderation and restraint I do not want to lose it now, because it is a fact that the same people who put him there threw out his two predecessors.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Yes, my Lords: I take the point of the noble Earl. I will also go on being restrained,

865
if I may. That is so, but they are the people who are elected. On the question of what their character is, perhaps our restraint will allow us not to touch upon the character of individual people in Ireland except the terrorists, and I preserve the right to be critical of them, as is always the case.
We are now left with the problem of what to do. I think that the most important thing is for us always—and I come back to where I started—to take every step possible to discredit, and to avoid helping even indirectly, the terrorists. We have to meet their psychological campaign absolutely head on. In fact, when I spoke in the last debate on this subject in your Lordships' House, this was one of the points I made. It was interesting that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence reported, though perhaps slightly light-heartedly, that the senior Army officers in Ireland have been saying that the I.R.A. are mainly conducting a propaganda campaign supported by acts of terrorism. I believe this to be so, and we must match this point by point. Secondly, the sort of suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, made is something which very reasonably might be taken up. We are never going to get a perfect meeting of minds in the short-term. I think everybody will agree with that. Whether they agree with the reasons, whether they agree about who are the villains, is not the point. There is no meeting of minds. Surely there is a great deal to be said for arranging some sort of meeting, of some sort of people, as a starting point. I should have thought the sooner we got on with that the better.
6.1 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, until about a week ago I doubted whether there could have been enough change in the situation, since we last debated the subject of Northern Ireland in your Lordships' House, to justify so soon afterwards the debate we are having this afternoon. But since the events of last Sunday, following as they did in quick succession on a whole spate of other incidents, who can now doubt that this debate is timely and appropriate and, indeed, necessary? For that reason, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford for his uncanny anticipation of what happened in the streets of Derry last Sunday. What hap-
866
pened is going to be investigated, but proper and necessary though that undoubtedly is, there is nothing that can now undo the damage of that event. It is only the most recent in a whole succession of incidents, which make such a jarring and shocking contrast to the sober note of confidence sounded by Mr. Faulkner himself, and by General Tuzo, at the turn of the year, and endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his article in The Times exactly a week ago.
It was as if, purposely to give the lie to those expressions of hope, we have had a positive spate of bomb outrages, more brutal murders of police officers, and the nearest approach to open warfare astride the Border, quite apart from the sickening slaughter in Derry City last Sunday. To those who, like myself, have to rely on the news media for our facts and impressions, it really has been as though a chronic illness has suddenly taken a fatal turn for the worse. I was therefore to some extent reassured by what the Secretary of State for Defence had to tell us this afternoon. Perhaps the worst aspect of this worsening situation is that the prospects of any restoration of confidence, of any co-operation from the Catholic minority in the North being regained, of any good will from the Government and the people in the Republic being retained, become more distant and dim.
I trust that no one will accuse me of having any prejudice for or against either community in Northern Ireland. I gained enough knowledge in the late summer and autumn of 1969 to get some understanding of the reality of Catholic grievances, of the sincerity of Unionist fears, to respect the loyalties of the Unionists, to have some sympathy with the early aims of the Civil Rights Association, and indeed to have a sense of the close kinship which unites all Catholics throughout the whole length and breadth of Ireland. I say that simply because I want to join with other noble Lords who have made the same point that I am going to make, and to reinforce the view they hold.
There is now no denying that the Border is a burning issue. Of course it has been an issue all along, but for political reasons it was deemed expedient to turn a blind eye to it. That cannot be done

867
any longer. The realities of the situation demand that some form of union between North and South should not only be contemplated but considered and, above all, discussed as a long-term prospect. We all know that it cannot happen now, but Mr. Faulkner has pointed out that it is a perfectly legitimate aspiration of the Catholics in Ulster. But not only that: it is the firm and determined will of the great majority of all the people in that quite small island, just as union with Britain is the legitimate firm and determined will of the majority in Ulster. All this can only mean that it becomes more urgent and imperative to discuss the future, the long-term as well as the short-term. I see it as a test, a criterion, of the sense of responsibility of all leaders of all Parties, both Catholics and Unionists, in and out of Stormont, to agree to come to talks with an agenda that is as wide as possible, and which covers the whole range of issues. We all know that the difficulty of getting these talks going has become infinitely greater since last Sunday. That simply means that the efforts to get them going will have to be that much greater still. The pity is that perhaps not enough urgency and effort were put into getting talks going before this catastrophe.
It is tempting to say that it is worth any price to get these talks going. Quite apart from the difficulty of agreeing the kind of agenda that I have in mind, the price seems to revolve around the two questions of ending violence and ending internment. I am convinced that the ending of violence should not be entertained and demanded as a pre-condition of talks. It is on that premise that the talks have not got going so far. It has been one of the main stumbling blocks and I think was one of the demands made by Mr. Faulkner. That premise is quite unrealistic and talks will never start at all on that basis, simply because those who must be brought to the conference table do not have sufficient control over the sources of violence. It is in no sense an indication of weakness to agree to discuss a whole wide range of issues, including the question of internment. But the demand, as a pre-condition of starting talks, that the internees should be released, and that there should be no further use of that clause in the Special
868
Powers Act which might bring more people into a state of internment, must not be entertained.
I strongly support the Government's stand in retaining this weapon, deeply as my colleagues and I deplored the very existence of the Special Powers Act in the Report which we made to the Government of Northern Ireland in 1969. I detest internment, and I know that I share the same views on this as all of your Lordships. It is not a civilised measure, but we are dealing with people whose aim is to overthrow civilisation itself. We are not dealing with civilised people and, in the condition of terror created by the I.R.A. Provisionals, internment was unavoidable. As I said in your Lordships' House in September, the pity is that it was avoided for so long and not introduced sooner. I am bound to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, at this point. He expressed a hope—I would say, with great respect, a pious hope—that the I.R.A. would in certain circumstances entertain the idea of dropping violence. I would say that an end to internment and an end to violence are complete contradictions in terms. There is no genuine connection between the true aim of the terrorist and the civil rights of the minority in the North, or the nationalist aspirations of the majority in all Ireland. Unfortunately, time and events—and, as has been pointed out this evening, as Mr. Faulkner himself has rightly discerned it, skilful propaganda—have helped to blur the differences in the minds of too many people.
There is another side of this matter, which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, touched on just now and in which I should like to support him. It is briefly this. There is not yet civil war in Northern Ireland in the sense of open conflict between the two communities on a large scale and outside the law. In our anxiety about last Sunday it is important to remember that, as the Secretary of State for Defence has reassured us, the situation is still under control. But, my Lords, to let up now in the fight against the I.R.A., to release their leaders and their other ranks, could end control. It could provoke that backlash by the Unionists which we feared so much would happen last year and which has not happened yet. Would the Government

869
not admit that the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Protestant Volunteers, still exist; that they are waiting in the wings; that they have weapons at their command, and are waiting to be told to go? My Lords, I think it is greatly to the credit of the Right-Wing Unionist leaders, as it is of course to the Stormont Government, to the Government here and, most of all, perhaps, to the legal security forces, that up to date the Unionist Right Wing has not felt impelled to take the law into their own hands and to seek their own salvation. It behoves the Government, even at the cost of alienating still further the Catholic population, not to waver now.
My Lords, since we last debated this subject in your Lordships' House there have been some less serious changes in the situation, in the direction, not of weakening, but of reinforcing the policy of no compromise with the terrorists. Individual policemen have now been issued with personal weapons for their own protection, and yet more police officers have been shot than beforehand. A decision has been made to increase the size of the police reserve force, and so the gunmen have turned their guns on individual reservists: and it is the same story with the build up of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I am glad of these decisions to protect and strengthen the forces of law and order, but I am also worried. It was quite predictable that the I.R.A. would act as they did against the police, and for what it was worth had forecast in your Lordships' House last September that the R.U.C. would place itself more at risk with arms than without them.
I should like to ask the Government these questions. Has the loss of gallant police officers, regulars and reservists, and of loyal part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, adversely affected morale? Has it adversely affected recruitment? We have heard about the encouragement in recruitment given to the I.R.A.: what about the recruitment in the forces of law and order? And what about Catholic recruitment? What has been the effect of recent events on that? As regards the police, given that it was right to issue arms in present circumstances, are these weapons rifles or are they pistols, which would seem to me to be quite inappropriate weapons against
870
long-range snipers and mobile gangsters? Are police constables not more at risk than soldiers at all times, in that they carry out more individual duties and in that they have to live among the community? What is being done to protect the individual constable, apart from the protection given by his personal weapon? Is he covered by another constable or police officer, or by soldiers, in carrying out his individual duties? And, as a temporary measure, should he not live with his family in some protected area? I put this rather long series of questions about the police because of my particular interest in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and because I have been wondering for some time whether the police in Northern Ireland, if sufficiently reinforced and sufficiently protected, could not be now doing more of the kind of duties that the Army is doing but which are more properly done by the police.
My Lords, it is hard for me to advocate and to approve, as I have done by the inferences which can be drawn from the questions I have put, that the clock should be put back in regard to improving the relations between the police and the public, which improvement advanced, up to about 18 months ago, under the aegis of Sir Arthur Young. To arm the police, to put protective barriers between them and the public whom they serve and to whom they are accountable—these are regressive steps; and this, too, no doubt, could be part of the plan of the anarchists. But if a certain temporary loss in the contacts and in the closer relations between the police and the public is the price which must now be paid for protecting these gallant men of the R.U.C. and the police reserve, and for giving them and their families—and future recruits—some assurance that their lives will not needlessly be put in jeopardy, then I accept that this price must be paid.
6.17 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I should like to congratulate and thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this debate, and for the statesmanlike way in which he did it. I only hope, though, that if I express more radical views than have been so far expressed in this House, I shall do so with the same moderation. I attended one day of your Lordships'

871
debate on Northern Ireland in September, and I of course read the whole of the debate, but I found myself unable to take part in it because I thought that it was characterised, of course by that strong sense of duty and seriousness which always obtains in your Lordships' House but also by an air of unreality. It seemed to me that that discussion in our House took place as if the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, was Prime Minister in Ulster and not, as he was in that debate, sitting on these Benches. In other words, the solutions noble Lords propounded at that time, and the analysis they made of events, were really something like two years or even three years too late. Proposals were put forward then for ameliorating the situation. But the situation had been transformed during the summer by the beginning of internment. All I ask at this moment is: do not let us once again get our dates wrong. The situation in Northern Ireland does not stand still. It changes, and it gets worse; and the events last Sunday were an appalling deterioration in the situation—a deterioration which I think is bound to mean that many ideas of ameliorating the situation, which have been held with all sincerity, are now, once again, out of date.
I do not think it is profitable at this stage to go back in time and ask where blame lies. Even if it is true that the first violence came from the Protestant side in August, 1969, nevertheless it is pointless to go back in time and try to analyse how the violence escalated. All we know is that the violence is there, and that we are dealing with an appalling situation where you have a terrorist organisation which operates from strongly patriotic motives, and whose methods are the usual methods which all guerillas use. In saying that, I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who uses violence. I should like to join all Members of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in the tributes paid to the British Army. Every time you see on television Army officers being asked about incidents, you realise the restraint, the humanity and the sense of responsibility with which they go about their task; and I have no doubt they try to impress on the soldiers under them that same sense of responsibility.
872
What actually happened last Sunday is, in a sense, almost irrelevant to my argument. We just have to live with the fact that now a major incident has taken place, which could have been predicted to take place. So the bombings and the killings of British soldiers, and of Royal Ulster Constabulary, make the adrenalin in my blood rise every time I hear of them and see them depicted on television. But dwelling on violence will not help us to reach proposals for defusing this situation. This is where I was so disappointed in the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. He spoke with all his usual grace, with his lucidity and with the seriousness mixed with charm which I know that all Members of your Lordships' House find so attractive. But he was barren of ideas, barren of initiative and barren of any proposals for really trying to change things. He began with an analysis of the defence situation as he saw it. It was that impressive kind of situation report that one well remembers during the War; the kind of report in which things are always getting better; of how violence had almost been expelled from Belfast; of how the I.R.A. had been pushed back to the frontier. This analysis. I do not for one moment assert was his. It is put into his hands by his military advisers.
But I would suggest—and I hope that no one will think it frivolous—that the Cabinet, and certainly the Secretary of State for Defence, should see the film called The Liberation of AIgiers. Here is a film partly constructed from news reel material and partly from scenario. It depicts how the guerillas of the F.L.N. began in the early 1950s their plastic bomb attacks, their assassinations of police and their brutal murders. It was the same pattern that we see now with the I.R.A. The brutality and the horror of those attacks were not minimised in the film. Then comes the moment when the French Army decide that the situation must change. You see shots of les Paras marching into Algiers and at their head one of those intelligent, efficient French commanding officers who sets about his task in exactly the way you expect an able general to do. He understands that the first object is to get intelligence and information about the

873
pattern of the cells in the F.L.N.; and so this is done. Immediately the army begins to gain control. They first capture one cell, they execute the members of another, they interrogate others and in the end they eliminate them by blowing up houses, by blowing up whole areas in the Algerian quarter. They elminate the whole of the terrorist movement. But the film does not end there. The last ten minutes are newsreels of three or four years later—pictures depicting the celebrating of the Independence of Algiers, with the F.L.N. marching in triumph through the streets.
My Lords, my message to the Government is simply this. You cannot win a war of this kind. We have in this country our civilised standards of warfare and civilised standards of interrogation—and I say that advisedly; for although there was criticism of the methods of interrogation, although prisoners are put under pressure, they are not tortured as they were by the French Army in Algeria. We are too incapable of fighting the kind of all-out war which will eliminate a terrorist movement. This, of course, is an analysis which I perfectly understand is open to dispute. I understand perfectly that the Government believe sincerely that they can eliminate violence and "defeat ", as it is always termed, the I.R.A.; but I do not myself believe this to be so. I look back to occasions when it has not proved to be so: in Cyprus, in Aden, in Algeria. I think that we should weigh this most carefully and ask ourselves whether we can eliminate this permanently. Of course there may be recessions in the violence in one city or another, or in one part or another, of Northern Ireland; recessions in which the I.R.A. is temporarily disrupted. But I ask whether people really believe that I.R.A. violence can be brought to an end by the methods that we are at the moment employing. If so, it goes against recent history.
The next point that I want to make is this. We are dealing here with two communities. These two communities have now become almost totally polarised, so that when people talk about a modification of the Stormont Parliament, or maintain that the present Constitution in Ulster can hardly be altered except in minor details, this seems to me to be a totally unrealistic picture of what the situation now is where nearly half of
874
the country, the Catholic population, do not recognise the rule of the Government in their country. What are we to do? What can be done in a situation of this kind? I See two solutions. I will take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he said that we should sometimes look for longer-term solutions, as well as for short-term ones. I would say that there is one long-term solution which I personally should deplore, though I can understand that some people would prefer; that is, to partition the country strictly on a religious basis. This would be a Partition of Ulster itself, of which perhaps two and a half counties around Belfast might remain as a Protestant enclave from which a transfer of population, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth suggested, might take place. I think that it would be a terribly retrograde move and a reactionary solution. It may be that this, in the end, is what the Protestant population in Ulster will vote for if they wish to remain completely their own masters.
The other solution, which I infinitely prefer, is that put forward by Mr. Harold Wilson. That is, to make a declaration that our intention is to achieve a united Ireland. I think that when we talk about a united Ireland we should be clearly seen not to be talking of the present State of Eire. Perhaps here I may be allowed to dissent gently from a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. He said that there was no great religious tension between Catholics and Protestants. I wonder whether this is so. I believe that, in a united Ireland, there would have to be very great changes indeed in the minds of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will not take offence if I say that that hierarchy has the reputation of being one of the narrowest-minded, most intransigent, most entrenched and the least ecumenical of any country in Western Europe, except perhaps Spain. I hope that the noble Earl will use his influence to suggest to the Republic of Eire that if they are going to talk about a united Ireland there will have to be considerable changes in the theocratic nature of the Roman Catholic Church. For it is not merely a question of birth control or of divorce; there are deep problems here affecting hospitals, affecting education. So I do not by any manner of means suggest

875
that all the "give" should be on the Protestant side in the solution of a united Ireland.
It will be objected, of course, that this idea goes against the British Constitution; that Northern Ireland is constitutionally part of the United Kingdom. But Constitutions, whether for the United Kingdom or for Ulster, must reflect political, communal realities; and here we have a situation where the present Constitutions no longer reflect the reality. They might have done at one time, but they do so no longer. And so, as I said, if one is thinking in terms of a long-term solution the first step is a declaration of intention by the British Government that they see, as the only future for Ireland, a united Ireland; that they recognise that this means a new Constitution for Ulster which would recognise the two religious communities, each with its own leaders, and that arrangements would have to be made for them to come together in some new form.
A second step would be a recognition of bi-citizenship. Nobody who is a subject of the United Kingdom should lose that citizenship. This is not, it seems to me, a very difficult problem when we remember the way in which an Eire passport is treated now in respect of citizens of Eire entering this country. There are many problems of that kind, but none of them seems to me to be constitutionally incapable of being overcome.
A third step, which again I think will have to be faced, is that an offer will have to be made of repatriation to this country of anyone in Northern Ireland who did not wish to remain and live in that country. just as in Algeria there was the repatriation of the colons. That there may be such people may be fanciful, and there may, of course, be only a minute number. But even if it were a larger number than people might imagine at the moment, the cost of repatriation would be infinitesimal compared with the cost of the destruction. the cost of the tension, at present in Ulster. I know, too, that there are problems regarding the Welfare State; that Northern Ireland has advantages which the Republic of Ireland does not have. Again I do not believe that these problems are incapable of solution. Therefore I hope that, even though this
876
initiative has come from the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will bear it in mind and move towards it. For at the moment, as I say, there is a terrible barrenness about the response which is coming from the Government Benches; a barrenness which admits that the only thing to do is to slog it out.
I must face, too, the role of the Army. If you have a declaration of intent of moving towards a United Ireland, you must also face the fact that there should be a timetable. Is it too much to ask, at any rate for noble Lords on the Labour Benches—like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who served under Mr. Attlee—to remember India? Of course I shall be accused at once of saying, "Yes, that is the very thing we want to avoid—what happened in India: the terrible slaughter of the Hindus and Muslims; the vast exchanges of population which took place during the holocaust that followed the end of British rule."And yet, my Lords (and I say this with no disrespect to the greatest statesman of our time), had Sir Winston Churchill been Premier, with his well-known views on India, should we have had the transfer of power that we had under Mr. Attlee? My Lords, I believe that Mr. Attlee took one of the most imaginative steps in statesmanship in post-war years when he declared that the Indian problem must be solved. He did it at appalling cost; but it was done. And even though the cost was great, the gains have been more enormous.
I am not suggesting that overnight the Army should be removed from Northern Ireland. But what I do say is that so long as the Army remains it will be almost impossible to bring the two sides together. Its removal would, of course, be a gamble. It is a gamble when you say, "We have a declaration of intent; we have a timetable, and on this date there is to be a withdrawal."Is that too fanciful? Would the Catholics and Protestants in Ulster, recognising that a day of reckoning was at hand, prepare for internecine war? Or would they recognise that their only hope for the future was that they should work together? My Lords, these are imponderables. It would be a gamble; and yet statesmanship sometimes resides in a gamble.
I appeal to the Government to show more imagination than they are

877
showing at the moment. I speak here in two guises, one as an historian. If you study, my Lords, the history of Ireland the story is one in which all British attempts at coercion have ended in failure. I was sad when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, quoted Lord Salisbury—I am talking, of course, about the present noble Marquess's grandfather. I was sad because Lord Salisbury was a man who was incapable, at the end of the 19th century, of understanding that Home Rule might come about. To him it was an impossibility. And by the very quotation from Lord Salisbury I have the feeling that the Government did not at heart believe there was a possibility of any major change in Ireland. I have said that I stand here and talk as an historian. I am also, of course branded as an intellectual, and I know that intellectuals in the Labour Party have not always been the most popular part of that Party—though I am speaking now from the Cross-Benches. But let me say this, my Lords. Intellectuals are very often wrong about politics: they often see things in far too clear terms; in solutions which have little reality because ordinary people cannot either understand them or accept them. But sometimes intellectuals have been right in foreign affairs.
They were right, I think, about Nazi Germany. They were in favour of rearmament at a time when the Labour Party was not. They were in favour of standing up to Hitler at a time when the Conservative Party was not. Again, I do not think that the intellectuals came out too badly over the business of the treatment of colonial peoples. The famous "winds of change" speech of Mr. Macmillan was a great speech; but, of course, it had been made 20, 30, 40 years before by people who saw how the movement in the Colonies was going. I end by simply saying this, my Lords: that we are talking this evening about our oldest Colony; a Colony which is stained with British mismanagement; a Colony which was indeed colonised in the reign of James I. Your Lordships may say that to go back to James I is ludicrous; but Irish memories go back to Strongbow, far further than James I. Somehow we have to understand, and as Anglo-Saxons make an imaginative leap to try to meet the Irish imagination.
6.40 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, from time to time in your Lordships' House I have found considerable pleasure in taking part in debates. To-day I have no similar sense of euphoria, but indeed a deep sense of perturbation, which is increased by the news that is appearing on the tape of the firing by petrol bombs of the British Embassy in Dublin. This is an accelerating process, of which the events on Sunday were a further stage, and perhaps it is a terminal one. Therefore I am the more grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. for the opportune timing of this debate. But I enter upon it with a great deal of unhappiness, which, if your Lordships will allow me, I should like to share with you, because I should like at the same time to respond to the noble Earl's appeal for restraint.
I am at the moment seething with anger. I make no apology for saying that; I declare it. That anger is partly because of events of which there is no doubt. When I think of the knock at the door, and the woman who opens the door who is brushed aside and lead is pumped into her husband, I am filled with anger: and I reflect that there is no more sorrow in the world than that one widow's tears—not qualitatively. When I hear, and see upon the television screen young hooligans, who know nothing about this except their hatred and their prejudice, stoning soldiers, who stand there mute. trying to understand and, as best they can, to make the appropriate response. I am full of anger. When I reflect upon the toll of murder and the intolerable and execrable situation that split open the whole Irish question last Sunday, it would seem to me to be totally improper if I were to enter upon any talk or discussion of these matters without declaring that anger which is mingled with frustration and not a little shame. There is the frustration of having to wait until somebody can tell me whether, and if so why, those shots in the back were the result of British bullets. Until somebody can tell me what are the true facts about the situation, of which so many diverse and mutually contradictory reports have already appeared, I must await the findings of the Tribunal. But my frustration is the more exacerbating because it would appear that quite a number of those who should appear before that Tribunal have

879
already declared their complete opposition to it and their refusal to have anything to do with it.
But I am also, as a churchman, filled with a considerable amount of sheer shame when I think of what is happening in Northern Ireland some 1,900 years after the first proclamation of the Christian Gospel, and among people who, in a majority, profess the Christian faith, whether they belong to the Catholic or the Protestant creeds. Partly because I want to be restrained, I would invite your Lordships for a little while to examine, if you will, this curious situation, this deplorable situation, in which Roman Catholics and Protestants are at each other's throats, at a time when the history of Europe would tend to persuade us, and contemporary evidence would tend to confirm it, that Protestants and Catholics have found a modus vivendi in other countries. I know very well that this does not properly apply to Spain, and that it is not so long ago that Roman Catholics were underprivileged in this country. But, broadly and largely, Catholics and Protestants have found a way of living together, and of keeping a fellowship of controversy even when they cannot agree.
I ask myself: Why has this happened? Perhaps the first answer is because continentally, at least, a great proportion of the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant has been in the metaphysical sphere: those who believed in supralapsarianism and those who preferred infralapsarianism; those who accepted the doctrines of justification by faith, and those who repudiated them. I remember when I occupied rooms in St. Catharine's College, Cambridge, which once had been kept by J. M. Figgis, the historian, that he made the somewhat cumbrous remark, which from its own length and complexity I tend to remember, that "political liberty is the residuary legatee of ecclesiastical animosities". I dare say that is true; I have tried diligently to understand it, and I think it is true. It is true because the overall claims of the community have been preferred under Gallicanism, from Richer and Richelieu through Bossuet to the Code Napoleon and to Febromanism in the nineteenth century among the Germanic States. I believe that this is the
880
key to an understanding of why this process has not developed and fructified in Northern Ireland, because in Northern Ireland the differences between the Catholics and the Protestants have been polarised in terms of mutually antagonistic concepts of community, of the State. I would say, rather extravagantly, perhaps, that a Roman Catholic in Eire will regard Dublin (shall we say?), and indeed his own country, as a kind of suburb of the City of God; and Protestants in Belfast may equally regard the British Empire, or the British Commonwealth, as almost the same thing as the Kindom of Heaven. The net result has been that these religious differences have crystallised out into political animosities, because there has been no overall sense of community to resolve these differences in a more harmonious fashion.
Not only is this a matter of regret; it seems to me that it is a matter of shame. And I dare say that a good deal of it springs from the inner nature of certain concepts that belong both to the Roman Catholic and to the Protestant faith—characteristics which should be kept under severe control, such as Papal infallibility; and I am glad that it has been. As your Lordships will realise, the infallibility of the Book, as opposed to the infallibility of the person, has been a marked attitude and conviction, at any rate with a large proportion of the Protestants in Northern Ireland. As I have remarked before, one thing you have to say about the Bible is that it is much more garrulous than the Pope.
Therefore I am very happy when I hear the noble Earl proclaiming his belief that we really do not differ as much as some people imagine, and that we ought to get together. And when I am further instructed by my noble prelatorial colleague from Portsmouth that in fact the Ecumenical movement is persuading Catholics and Protestants to work together, I wonder whether this is a sufficient answer. In fact, I am sure it is not. I believe that the only sufficient answer to that aspect of the problem of Northern Ireland which can be called religious is a radical change in the fundamental attitudes and the fundamental credal positions of both Churches. Until that happens, I think we shall still be under the general condemnation of a

881
civilised society where it exists. It is for that reason that I very much hope that the official leaders of the Churches will begin to do much more than inquire into ways in which fellowship can be extended, and will persuade themselves, and through that persuasion convince other people within these two faiths, that our primary business is not to identify ourselves with any existing form of society but to seek a unity, by directing the attention of those who are believers and those who are followers to a society that is nobler and better than either of those which now attract and control such fervent and unremitting loyalty as that which I acknowledge belongs both in Belfast and in Dublin.
These are words said in an atmosphere in which the whole structure and fabric of organised Christianity is being increasingly called into question. If there is some kind of silver lining to be detected in these heavy clouds, it is that at this precise moment, I believe, there are more and more who are disposed to believe that if the Christians were more concerned with the building up of the fellowship of the Kingdom of God on earth, rather than with the more supernatural and metaphysical aspects of their faith, we might have a resurgence of unity and might come to that position which the noble Earl so desires—as, indeed, surely, we all do—in which Christians will again be the leaven of the lump.
So much, my Lords, for what I believe needs to be said about the situation in so far as it is religious. But I am well aware that a great deal of what superficially looks like a religious issue turns out to be an economic, political or social one with a spiritual superstructure that very largely masks the true foundation. It is not necessary to follow Marx to the end of the road that Engels persuaded him to follow in order to believe that a great deal of what is happening or not happening in Northern Ireland to-day belongs to the realm with which many of your Lordships have been most concerned in the various points you have made and in the suggestions you have put forward.
I would appeal to the Government to press forward with such plans as the bringing together of those who are pre-
882
pared to come together at the earliest moment. I believe that there are great advantages to be gained from a contemplation of what inevitably must happen, and that is an entirely different kind of règime in Stormont, and indeed a united Ireland—not one which repeats the predatory nature, the dangers and superficial virtues of the nation-State, but one which perhaps can, as a community, begin to look towards some kind of World Government, finding its unity, not in the proliferation of those rites and ceremonies which belong in the nation-State but in being some kind of bellwether of a more comprehensive unity.
As has been said, there are two problems and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, expressed them clearly. There is the problem of the acceptability of any plans which sound possibly fruitful or worth pursuing; and there is a previous problem, and that is accessibility. Here I confess to the deepest melancholy. In the present situation I cannot see the possibility of plans, however varied, pragmatic or constructive they may be, being undertaken unless there is a radical change in the situation, which we all deplore at present. Referring to the admirable and movingly restrained speech of my noble friend Lord Brockway, I share with him the belief that we have reached a point of no return. I ask myself where is that point to be discovered. Reluctantly, I believe that it lies in the proliferation of violence which, far from decreasing with the increase in the number of troops from this country, has in fact increased.
The logic of the noble Lord who preceded me seems to be this: that he cannot see any hope of accessability to the conference table or of controversy or discussion unless the fighting stops. In fact, if I heard him aright, lie almost committed himself to the belief that it would be necessary to withdraw the troops. He did not press that to its logical conclusion. With reluctance and with considerable awareness of the dangers which would accrue, I am increasingly coming to the conviction that only by such a dramatic action would it be possible to entertain possibilities afterwards of some kind of more peaceful cogitation, deliberation and programming. I do not share the belief that we

883
should immediately release all the internees. I would earnestly ask the Government whether or not the only just or right thing would be immediately, or as immediately as can be arranged, to bring them to trial. This would seem to be sensible and would take a great deal of sting out of the present claim made—very extravagantly, but I think very honestly—by so many people. But I say before I sit down, not because I am a convinced pacifist, that in this particular matter it seems to me that the withdrawal of troops is the only lasting way by which the present situation, which is intolerable, execrable and otherwise irreversible, can be changed. If there is no agreement and no possibility that this can be done, then I am in a deeper melancholy, for, of all the things that have been said this afternoon, I cannot see one of them which has the slightest chance of being put into effective operation at this moment.
I earnestly look forward to the time when people in Northern Ireland who are religious will realise that their common activities in Christ are much more important than their various theological divergencies. I look forward to the time when a truly socialist Administration will remove many of those injustices and deprivations which at present exacerbate the situation. I look forward to the time when the people of Ireland will find a community and, perhaps as a preliminary measure, will find that community through a community Government in Stormont. What sticks in my gullet and what I cannot avoid is a conclusion—and that is why I bear witness to it—that unless this present bitterness and hatred, which accelerates with every shot that is fired, can in some way be redressed, there is no hope.
Now if it is argued that we shall take a tremendous risk by so doing: granted. I wonder whether the risk could be any greater than that which faces us and Northern Ireland to-night. Indeed I do not wonder: I believe that the risk would immediately release into this paralysed situation the countless wishes, hopes and intentions of ordinary people in Ireland who earnestly desire the end of violence. I believe that the credibility of the I.R.A. Provisionals would immediately tend to diminish. For that reason, though it is a very difficult and hard option, I make my contribution to this debate in advis-
884
ing, if I may, the Government to consider seriously whether such an adventure of faith is not the only alternative to the proliferation of violence and a total catastrophe.
6.59 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF HEADFORT: My Lords, first I should like to say that it was with tremendous shock and horror that I heard of the happenings in Londonderry on Sunday, and I should like to extend my sympathy and those of your Lordships to the relatives of the dead and to the injured. To-day I was glad to hear of the speed with which the Government have set up the Tribunal with the Lord Chief Justice to investigate exactly what did happen and, if necessary, to apportion blame. However, I am sorry that no international figure has been invited to sit on this Tribunal, because I feel that had such a figure been so invited it would have had a much better chance of being fully accepted throughout Ireland as a truly impartial inquiry.
My Lords, I do not know whether any of you had an opportunity of seeing yesterday's Irish Time, There is a report in that paper, near the bottom of the front page, about an Italian journalist, and I will quote from it. The Italian journalist, Signor Grimaldi, said yesterday in a radio interview that was reproduced in the Irish Times, that:
"tape recordings which he had made on Sunday indicated beyond doubt that there had been no provocation before the British Army opened fire in Derry on Sunday afternoon. 'There hadn't been one shot fired at them', he said. 'There hadn't been one petrol bomb thrown at them. There hadn't been one nail bomb thrown at them. They just jumped out, and, with unbelievable, murderous fury, shot into the fleeing crowd.'"
He went on to say:
"I have travelled in many countries. I have seen many civil wars and revolutions and wars. I have never seen such a cold-blooded murder, organised, disciplined murder, planned murder."
I was not in Derry on Sunday; this man was. I hope that those of your Lordships who can spare the time will read this paper, and that also the Tribunal of Inquiry will summon Signor Grimaldi to give evidence before them.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I must interrupt. The noble Marquess quoted a report from an Italian paper by

885
a journalist on the spot. Is he suggesting that this report is 100 per cent. accurate? I am not trying to foul my own nest, but is he suggesting that this should be taken as concrete evidence of fact? As I say, I must not speak against the newspapers, but this seemingly objective man, an Italian Catholic, reports what he thought he saw. Without danger of prejudicing the forthcoming Inquiry, I do not think we should quote from this one journalist on this one time who has spoken so seriously, so violently and so accusingly.
THE MARQUESS OF HEADFORT: It was not an Italian newspaper; it was in the Irish Times.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: That strengthens my point.
THE MARQUESS OF HEADFORT: My Lords, I feel, however, it would be of help to the Inquiry if Signor Grimaldi was invited to take part. Your Lordships will also have seen in some of the British Press reports of a pathologist's report that some of the victims in Sunday's shooting were shot in the back. Many difficulties have created the present situation—
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? Had it occurred to him that if they were shot in the back they might have been shot by their own side?
THE MARQUESS OF HEADFORT: I admit that there is that possibility; but there were no casualties among the British forces on that day, so it suggests that there was not very much fire directed at them.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, is not the noble Marquess prejudging the results of the Inquiry to be held, and wrongly?
THE MARQUESS OF HEADFORT: My Lords, if I may continue. One of the matters which has brought the present situation to its disastrous head is that of internment without trial. I personally believe that this must be ended, and ended soon. Bring the men to trial or release them. Get the Catholic population and their leaders to talk again. We cannot continue with this present morass of disaster and death. With regard to
886
the situation on the Border, it has been suggested by the Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Lynch, that the United Nations presence on the Border would be helpful. was surprised and sorry that the British Government did not feel this to be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that direct rule from Westminster was necessary, and I heartily concur with that.
Looking to the future, I think that possibly one solution, although it is one I do not favour greatly, is to re-draw the Border and allow those Catholic areas of Northern Ireland to join the South if they so wish. I came across from Ireland yesterday; I can tell you of the tremendous shock and cold anger there is in the South of Ireland to-day at what happened in Londonderry on Sunday. Before that happened there was some passive support of the I.R.A. in the South, but now I am afraid that that support is becoming much more active. We cannot achieve a military solution in Northern Ireland. We must take the steps to enable talks to start.
7.5 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in the grim atmosphere of to-day, with feelings of violence and hatred in the air and almost, as it were, standing in the shadow of death, I should like to make one or two illustrations of small points where in Northern Ireland there is some cause for hope. May I start with something called the Corrymeela Community? This grew from students and graduates of Queen's University. It was originally a Protestant body, but since has become fully ecumenical; by this I mean that there are representatives within the Community of all the major Christian denominations. It has permanent centres in Belfast and Bally Castle; it has groups of associates in London and Dublin. During the past year the Community organised no fewer than 103 conferences, of which about half were concerned with community relations, the others being devoted to educational purposes and specific conferences for particular church groups. Five thousand persons stayed in the past year at the Bally Castle centre. The Community also organised 13 work camps involving some 250 people. This is not a new church; but it is a movement challenging the existing Churches to reconciliation and peace.

887
Then again one might look at the work of the Save the Children Fund in Belfast. This body is now catering for 1,000 children between the ages of 3 and 12 years. It is running 16 play groups, play centres and junior clubs, Eleven out of the 16 are centres newly-started since the troubles began. The children attending these places are mixed denominationally wherever this is possible; that is to say, when they come from areas of mixed habitation, or border areas between one community and another. The work has been supported most helpfully by grants from the Northern Ireland Ministry of Community Relations.
There is also the Belfast Housing Aid Society. This body has helped well over 500 families to be rehoused since the troubles began. The families helped have been of all denominations. Some of them were assisted to buy their own houses through deposits provided from the fund raised by the Belfast Telegraph. In the particular district of Belfast known as the Ardoyne there is an ecumenical housing committee which has begun to repair the 194 modern houses which were burnt out on the evening of internment last August. Of those 194, I understand that already 100 houses have been made weather-proof and will soon be completely habitable.
This is not perhaps very much to weigh in the balance against 200 deaths, and things of that kind, yet surely we must strive to encourage and make fruitful these attempts by men of good will. Noble Lords who have spoken have described the polarised situation in Northern Ireland, where the majority desperately wish to maintain their connection with the United Kingdom; where the minority are, to some extent, alienated and disgruntled and where there is little dialogue between the majority and the minority. In this situation I have a feeling that perhaps we should turn back to a speech made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in 1969 in Trinity College, Dublin. He suggested the formation of a tripartite Irish Council, which I also understand is something for which provision was made in the Act of 1920 but which was never subsequently formed. Such a Council might perhaps meet in the first place as a peace conference, following the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth. On its agenda there should be
888
the question of the sharing of power between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Southern Ireland. The word "condominium" is perhaps not exactly a fashionable one at the present time, but it may be significant that the United Kingdom has taken part in all three condominiums which have existed since the final years of the last century. They existed in Samoa, in the Sudan and in the New Hebrides, and it is perhaps worthy of note that the arrangement lasted for 67 years in the Sudan and for 65 years in the New Hebrides.
In this kind of context it would not, I feel, be necessary, or even desirable, to abolish Stormont. Stormont as an Assembly could continue, helped perhaps by the introduction of proportional representation. It could take its rightful place as a legislative and consultative body within the framework of British and European regional policies. If I may express a hope, it is this: that when the Commission headed by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, reports fairly soon it will have the courage to make recommendations concerning Northern Ireland Arrangements of this kind could, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, be backed up by dual citizenship for the inhabitants of Northern Ireland so that they would feel equally at home both in Britain and in Southern Ireland, Then, again, another helpful thing might be a plebiscite on the ultimate question of reunion, a plebiscite to be conducted perhaps only every 10 or 20 years. My Lords, these are not original ideas of mine. The have been put forward in various letters to the Press, one last November in a newspaper called the Irish Press, another more recently in the Guardian of January 8, 1972, signed by Professor Mansurgh of Cambridge University.
To turn, if I may, to a future Irish Council, I feel that its task should be to promote by all possible means the unity and harmony of the United Kingdom and of the whole of Ireland. Already we have such things as a common travel area; we already enjoy a wide measure of free trade between Britain and Ireland. For de facto purposes, citizens of Southern Ireland enjoy nearly all the rights of citizenship when they come to live or work in Britain. This is the kind

889
of basis, surely, on which we could build common services. The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, I believe, has in the past been very much interested in the question of trans-Border electricity; but there are no doubt more urgent and more vital fields than this. It will be necessary to harmonise the law, the economy, the welfare services and the educational systems of Britain and Ireland. These are the tasks to which I hope an Irish Council with tripartite membership would address itself. My Lords, I beg to support the Motion.
7.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, the debate so gracefully introduced by the noble Earl this afternoon is about Northern Ireland. I should like, if I may, to extend it to the whole of Ireland. Ireland is an island. It is a geographic and a demographic whole. Denominationally and politically it is, alas! divided. But you cannot speak about Northern Ireland without at the same time speaking about Southern Ireland. And since Irishmen can come to Britain and vote in our Elections perhaps we also have the right to express our views, our anxieties, about the South—not too dogmatically, of course: I am no Senator Kennedy. On Northern Ireland I will simply say this at this stage. I would remind your Lordships that 59 members of the Defence Forces have been murdered in the past year. In contrast, 13 men died in Londonderry. We wait to know why. I share the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and his impatience. Meanwhile, we should do well to remember that the 59 were British.
I was brought up on the principle: "My country, right or wrong". Nowadays, I do not say in your Lordships' House, but in many newspapers, the principle seems to be that my country is always wrong. I am perhaps as well qualified as any Member of your Lordships' House to speak about these matters, though I have held back so far because I was too angry. I am a settler: we were sent to Ireland by Queen Elizabeth I and we lived there for nearly 400 years. I am not anti-Catholic, and, as evidence of this, I would point to the debate which I had the honour of introducing in your Lordships' House some eight or nine years ago about Christian unity, in which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke as
890
a Catholic. When I myself am asked whether I am Protestant or Catholic, I say I am a Christian. That is the whole point of ecumenism; though I must in truth admit that the troubles in Northern Ireland in the last year or two have set back the cause of Christian unity by perhaps twenty, thirty or even fifty years. This point was made by the most reverend Primate in our last debate on this subject, in September.
I have no single drop of Irish blood, so far as I know, in my veins. Although of Protestant extraction, I have in my family a cousin, Countess Markiewitz (a closer cousin still to the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth), who espoused the cause of Sinn Fein when I was very young. My father had two houses in Southern Ireland. Both were burnt by Sinn Fein, though our record in regard to the famines (we are going back a long way, as the Irish like to do) was excellent. Mrs. Woodham-Smith will confirm this. I cannot speak for my ancestors, but I imagine they regarded this, as I would regard it to-day, as their duty. The ancestors of other noble Lords could not perhaps boast the same thing. I own the main street of the town of Donegal, and I rack-rent my tenants to the tune of 4p a week; some of them have not paid for quite a long time. In short, I would say that my credentials (which I have been rather labouring) are irreproachable, and I approach this matter from a racially and religiously objective point of view. Admittedly I have my bitternesses, as have others of your Lordships, in regard to what has happened to British troops in Northern Ireland. I am no accessory to murder. But, my Lords, put quite simply, and getting to the point, I am less worried about the immediate difficulties in Northern Ireland than I am about those in Southern Ireland.
I think it possible, indeed more than possible, that Southern Ireland—if you like, a foreign country, though its citizens have the right to vote in our country and influence our Elections—may be on the verge of a revolution. This is not irresponsible talk. I quote Cardinal Conway, a good and saintly man. He said this:
"Normal life rests only on a crust, under which there is a boiling volcano … do people realise how thin the crust is, and if it is broken

891
how it will be almost impossible to stop the lava of violence flowing on the streets?"
My Lords, His Eminence was not talking about Northern Ireland, he was talking about the South, and he meant what he said. I do not know whether your Lordships have faced the fact that it is possible at any time that there might be civil war, not only in Northern Ireland but also in Eire. The Lynch Government, which I respect, is not in a position of strength. It might be overthrown at any time by force. It was strange, or perhaps not strange, when they decided to withdraw 150 United Nations troops from Cyprus. Upon them, they thought, and no doubt rightly, they could rely.
But to come back to the words of Cardinal Conway—and he is the text of my little sermon—the lava is there, the volcano is in danger of brimming over. What would happen, what would be the results if this occurred? These are not rhetorical questions; these are questions of fact. Will your Lordships please imagine that suddenly the Lynch Government, the democratically elected Government of Ireland, finds itself in a direct face-to-face confrontation with the I.R.A.? This is no mere conjecture; the fact that there are battles across the Border clearly indicates that the Dublin Government is not in control, or at least not in full control. I should think that the Irish Prime Minister must live in constant anxiety about this.
In the last resort, which way is the country of Eire, this anomalous, self-eating octopus, to go? Are they to follow their legally elected Government or are they going, suddenly, madly, the other way? Are we to get lynch law?—and by "lynch" I mean not the Prime Minister, but mob rule. I have not seen any of your Lordships shaking your heads so far, but I am sure that you do not share my anxieties to the same extent as I feel them. In such an event, what would happen? In the South you would get an anarchic, violent, unprincipled and, I would add the word, murderous gang on the rampage. In the North there would be a mass of Orangemen who are equally well armed and probably more efficient in their organisation than their Catholic opponents. So far they have held back, and to their credit; but God help Belfast if they no longer believe in the British troops and decide to move in on their
892
own! The noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested that we might take a chance on this, although he remembers partition in India when 3 million died in one week. Personally, I would not risk it. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in our September debate on Ulster. He said:
"It is really rather tragic that many of the decent, moderate, law-abiding Roman Catholics have come to believe that the British soldier is their enemy and treat him as such. What do they really think their position would be if the British Army was not there in Northern Ireland? Can they honestly say that they would be safer in their homes if no British soldier was in Northern Ireland?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/9/71; c. 14.]
I should like to emphasise what the noble Lord said. My Lords, I can tell you what would happen if there were no British Army. We would risk a blood bath in Belfast. We would get—I think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, spoke of this—another Amritsa, another Warsaw. As it is, if the British Army remains, and remain it must, it will remain "pig in the middle."It will not know which side it is on, it will just know that everybody is its enemy. In the end, of course, if there is trouble in the South as well, we may have to withdraw our troops and leave them to fight it out. It would be a sort of mini-Dunkirk.
I have listened to your Lordships' debate and the wise and restrained things that have been said, but I still feel that we are ignoring the real issue. The real issue is not Northern Ireland, it is Ireland as an island. I think that your Lordships have funked it in the sense that you are not prepared to see the situation as it really is. You may ask me how I dare to say this. In reply, I simply point again to Cardinal Conway, that most excellent man born in Belfast, Catholic, who sees the dangers that lie before the whole of the Irish island.
My Lords, I may be accused of "stirring it"; I am sure that I shall be accused of partisanship although, as I said, my record is unimpeachable. I shall be accused of having proffered no practical proposal except for my firmly held view that for the sake of the Catholic minority the British troops must remain. But I try in my small way to look forward. I am, perhaps, or I like to think I am, a strategist more than a tactician. I view the whole situation in

893
Ireland with horror. As a British patriot—and patriotism has not been the keynote of the Opposition speeches or those of my noble friends—I deeply resent the abominations of the I.R.A. I cannot go along with terror.
But when I put these things aside—and your Lordships will know how difficult it is to put these things aside—I am left with this single situation. What is going to happen to Ireland?—and when I say Ireland, I mean the whole of Ireland. Are we in for a reasonable political settlement or are we in for a reign of blood and terror? Is Belfast, or even Dublin, to be another Dacca? Is Ireland to be another Bangladesh? My Lords, I do not know. I simply warn your Lordships of the situation, not as it is in one part of Ireland, but in the whole of the Irish island. I do not do this willingly, for I am by nature a cheerful fellow. I ask your Lordships most seriously to consider these things and to envisage what is not fantasy but a very clear and definite possibility. As Cardinal Conway said, "The crust is a thin crust. It could easily break."
7.28 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, over these tumultuous years there has been at least one voice of sweetness, light, reconciliation and realism in Northern Ireland. That is the voice of the Belfast Telegraph, a newspaper that I know only as a reader. Tonight the editorial in the Telegraph says that this is the time to "stop by the graveside and reflect"—tonight. the night of the great funeral in Ireland. I think that it is in that spirit that the debate in this House has been conducted to-day. I do not think there is one of us who has not totally reconstructed his thoughts and his speech in the light of the events of Sunday. The Telegraph goes on to express a fear, which I hope will prove to be wrong, that Ulster is
"in danger of becoming immune to the sting of death, in danger of seeing a victory in the grave that is not to be had."
In this desperate moment, my Lords, I am tempted to say that the problem which faces us is not to find a political solution in Northern Ireland but to avert a human catastrophe. Fortunately, such a bleak proposition is not called for, for
894
the problem of finding a solution and the problem of averting disaster are inter-linked. In all military struggles peace aims must have a profound importance. They may fortify our own courage and patience and they may, if they are generous and beneficient, shorten the struggle. They may win us friends among those who are caught up in the struggle and they may win us friends in the critical world outside.
I think there is to-day throughout the world little understanding of the problem that Britain faces. There is too little sympathy with us and there is too much criticism. The fact that the majority of people in Northern Ireland are passionately opposed to dis-union with Britain is too often unknown, and where it is known it is discounted. This tragic Bog-side story strengthens the impression. The Tribunal of Inquiry may confirm the statement made by the Minister of State for Defence in another place yesterday and all the views that he expressed about the course of "Bloody Sunday", and if the Tribunal does confirm his findings it will be a comfort to all of us to know that the Army behaved with its customary decency and skill.
Nevertheless, whatever the findings are, all that the world will see is a picture of troops with guns and 13 people of a civilian crowd massacred. This may prove to be a mere myth, but of course in politics the myth is always powerful. At this moment all political solutions look hopeless; indeed, they have never looked hopeful during these last twelve months. We are faced with two communities, each with a leadership with directly conflicting aims, one insisting that they stay part of the United Kingdom, the other insisting that they should be let out to make a new union. But the seeming hopelessness of a political solution does not relieve us of the moral obligation to search for a compromise, to try to secure its acceptance, and in the last resort, failing acceptance by the highly committed and more and more extreme leaders of the movements in the North of Ireland, perhaps finding out what the people in Northern Ireland really want.
It is our responsibility, it is our duty to insist that a just, democratic system exists in Northern Ireland, and it is now universally agreed that this system must be vastly different from the one under

895
which the Catholic minority has suffered for fifty years, and against which it has rightly protested. But there are those people who say, "Let us get out. Let them stew in their own bitter juice". I am not including people such as my noble friend Lord Soper or the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who viewed withdrawal as an important constructive act towards a new reconciliation. I am simply speaking of these people who say, "Let us wash our hands of Ireland. It is too troublesome and the Irish are not worth bothering about". We might do so; but if we did so we would never wash our hands clean because we here in Britain, just as much as the people of Ireland, are the victims of history, and we have inherited an inescapable responsibility.
But in all this sombre scene there is one ray of hope. There is emerging here a consensus among liberally-minded people about the kind of solution which would be just, and is perhaps just feasible. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, himself put it very well this afternoon, I thought, and I am only sorry that this Governmental voice has been heard so seldom and so feebly on this great subject. There are many intelligent people in this country who believe that this Government have no political policy at all for Northern Ireland, and there are many mothers of sons who are fighting there (some of whom from time to time write to me) and who have no idea what our responsibility is, why we are there and what we are trying to do. The Government must take this more seriously; they must take their relationship with the people here more seriously on this subject and must constantly explain what they are trying to do and how good their intentions really are.
As I have said, there is a consensus, and at the heart of this consensus, as my noble friend Lord Longford has said, there is the idea that there should be a communal Government with important places reserved for the minority. And it should be recognised, as it is being recognised—what seemed to be heretical in a Northern Ireland context only a year or two ago—that to believe in the eventual reunification of Ireland is no longer unpatriotic, no longer disloyal, and does not unfit a man for public office: it is indeed a legitimate aspiration. No new system will make any sense unless
896
the old cold war with the Republic ceases to exist on both sides, and unless the few things on which they now cooperate and the bodies on which there are, even to-day, all-Ireland Committees can proliferate over the next few years. Some day small steps such as these (if I may use the term used in connection with German reunification) may bring about a form of unity, although it is doubtful whether it will ever take the shape of the simple integration of which some people in Ireland are still dreaming to-day.
If the Republic of Ireland is seriously to pursue its aim of unity it must in turn be prepared for vast change. If I were a citizen of Northern Ireland I think I should probably accept the logic of unity. I could easily be susceptible to the romantic appeal of one nation, but I should still resist citizenship of a country where the Catholic Church still has so much influence on secular affairs. I should be worried about the civil liberties of my family in a country which accepts neither divorce nor contraception and censors what its citizens may read. I should be deeply concerned about the level of social welfare; I should be concerned about education, and I should also personally be concerned about sheer opportunity. But these, my Lords, seem to be trivial things in the context of arson, explosion, death and the defiance of the law.
I think that even those of us who are critical of Government policy and who feel that there is a lack of communication between our Government and the people of Northern Ireland, and that perhaps they have left too much to Mr. Faulkner and have blurred responsibility for security, must express our sympathies with Ministers who to-day share the political and military responsibility for Northern Ireland. It is a nightmare. They are facing a developing problem and every course of action is fraught with dangers, both visible and unseen. Of course Ministers have to act. That is their function, and there are dangers in inaction. But this is where one suspects that the real criticism of the Government must lie. They seem to be accepting frustration with too much resignation. The situation they are in to-day calls for political intuition and political ingenuity, and it calls for somebody to have complete and utter concentration on the task.

897
It is these qualities which seem to be lacking and which I hope the Govern. ment will now show.
7.39 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I wish to intervene quite briefly in this debate to make, and to support with some observations, one proposal, which is similar in effect to one of the proposals put to us this afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his skilful and convincing speech, and the only one which in my eyes holds prospects of radically altering the situation in Ireland; namely, that the Government should decide that it is a British interest to work for the reunification of Ireland and that all the policies from this moment on should be part of their tactics towards securing that objective.
I think it is indisputable that Britain, notwithstanding the support which we must continue to owe to the Protestants in Northern Ireland and about which I shall say more in a moment, is entitled to hold and express a view with regard to political objectives in Ireland which represent our own interests and which does not depend on objections now expressed in Northern Ireland. The annual financial cost to us of maintaining the standard of living of all the people in the Province, the political and military dependence of that Province on ourselves, the grievous dangers to which we are exposed in the present circumstances—all these facts entitle us to set our own target with regard to Ireland and to work for that target if we have judged that Northern Ireland as a political construction can no longer be preserved. And it cannot be preserved, whatever the successes in the campaign to suppress terrorism, if the consent of the Catholic minority to the existence of the Province has for all practical purposes been withdrawn. Moreover, if Northern Ireland as a political construction has failed (and I believe the British people are ready to accept the judgment that it has failed) and if such a judgment is made, then I believe that it is the wish of the British people that this fact should be acknowledged and the process of finding a final solution within the context of a united Ireland should begin.
I have recently seen it reported that a majority in this country want the Army
898
withdrawn from Northern Ireland. This would be perhaps some indication of the fact that the British people are not dedicated to the preservation of Northern Ireland. But as a recommendation for our withdrawal from Ireland I think it must be ignored. This country created the Province of Northern Ireland. We owe a heavy responsibility to the people we entrusted to the system we established. We have drawn abundantly on the talents and vigour of a people whose standards of conduct and culture are so similar to our own. It is inconceivable that we should abandon them to fight to preserve what they can of their identity in a united Ireland on their own. It must be our task to find a solution, and we must be involved in guaranteeing it once it has been found.
It would be our duty to be satisfied that the Protestant community were joining an Ireland whose Constitution and whose legislation in the field of personal freedom, particularly with regard to the family, was not obnoxious to them; that their prospects of public service, for which they are so suited, were unimpeded by requirements that put them at a disadvantage; that their standards of State welfare were maintained; and, as Lord Annan and also Lord Ardwick said, that the State they were joining was indeed a modern secular State. It would be our duty to secure for them guarantees, supported by ourselves, that the position secured for them by agreement was not subsequently lost.
In surveying the prospects for Northern Ireland, I think it is a mistake for our intentions to be determined by the adamance with which the Protestants in Northern Ireland now express their opposition to such a course. I accept, of course, that the unification of Ireland can be achieved only by consent, as both the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, agreed. But we have a right to attempt to win that consent. It is not enough for us to wait to be approached by the Protestants of Northern Ireland asking themselves for a united Ireland. We have also the duty to do all we can to offer them the chance of a future more secure than what the terror, the ruin and the hatreds permit in present circumstances.
The prospects for reunification could, in this and in other respects, most certainly

899
be worse. When Northern Ireland was established, the risks of having another independent Catholic country as our neighbour, and not necessarily bound to be friendly, had not yet been taken by ourselves. But 50 years of experience have shown the British people that the consequence was tolerable. Even in our most desperate days the neutrality of the Irish Republic was tolerated. The Irish Republic is a Catholic country, but she has a Parliamentary Government and a free Press. She has indicated her recognition of the fact that her Constitution must be made acceptable to Protestants if there is to be a union of Ireland. If this country makes it plain that she wants the reunification of Ireland, if she proves that the Protestant community can survive within a united Ireland, with all the possibilities that we in the same circumstances would demand for ourselves, then I believe that there is the chance that we could turn Protestant opposition—so vehement for so long as it is believed by them that British powers can preserve the status quo—into Protestant consent.
It is my argument that Her Majesty's Government should now decide that the goal it wishes to work towards is reunification of Ireland. Such a decision could become a matter of public knowledge in a variety of ways, suddenly or imperceptibly, accompanied by attempts to reconstruct the Province of Northern Ireland as an interim measure or not so accompanied, as a part or not as a part of the introduction of direct rule. But once the decision was made and known, and only then, will there be a possibility of securing the co-operation of the Protestants in working towards such an objective. With such a decision, and only then, it should be possible to agree over the question of the ending of internment. Only then can we expect the partnership of the Irish Republic in the suppression of terrorism. Only then can we expect to be able to bring all parties to conference.
As a goal, the unification of Ireland is, I believe, the only final solution. Just as geography determined that for 1,500 years we should be involved with Ireland, so it is geography that determines the solution. That it is time for the British Government to accept this target is I think plain. It would be nonsense to represent such a choice as capitulation
900
to gunmen. We should be responding not to the demands of terrorists but to the fact that the large minority in Northern Ireland, or a majority of them, no longer accepted the integrity of their State. Our problem in Northern Ireland is not terrorism; it is the support for terrorism. And each successive measure and event: internment, the cratering of the roads, the findings of the Compton Report, the attempt to disperse an illegal march—all these have solidified and broadened, they have not undermined, that support. I believe that the unification of Ireland as a goal of British policy would be acceptable to, if not even desired by, the British people. Otherwise, the prospects for ourselves in Ireland seems no better than the things we have experienced over the last 18 months, and most Probably worse. My Lords, we have not much time to lose.
7.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, however sad we may be about the present state of Ireland we must, I think, be grateful—and this is more than a form of words—to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for giving us the chance to debate this subject to-day. I hope your Lordships agree with me that the wisdom, patience and understanding of the noble Earl is much more fruitfully employed representing Ireland—and I am an Anglo-Irishman, as he is—than when he is pursuing elusive butterflies down the streets of Soho.
It has often been said, and I think it has been suggested here to-day, that debate on the Irish question at Westminster can do little to help and may, in so explosive a situation, do much to harm. It has been said how grave a responsibility lies with those who speak here about Ireland; their words may trigger the destruction of lives. I respect this attitude, and am suitably awed by it. Nevertheless I cling to the belief that a Parliament, a place for the talking over of men's affairs and the talking through of their tensions, is still the best instrument for airing and opening possibilities. And it is some sense of possibility, some hopefulness for Ireland, that we are in search of to-day. When there are two sides to a question it is easy enough to provide a framework wherein both may be discussed. Where there is a straightforward clash of interest between parties,

901
compromise and conciliation may at least be attempted. But the clash of interests in Ireland is Irish in its many-sidedness. There is at present not much to be done, hard though this may be to swallow. All we can do is to suffer, to communicate, to share experience, and, where possible, share it without bitterness, to take such precaution against deterioration as we can, and edge carefully towards some ultimate solution.
I do not believe that there is at heart any shortage of goodwill towards Ireland on this side of the Irish Sea, though there may be ineptness and hesitancy in expressing it. Neither the Prime Minister nor Mr. Wilson feel, or are known to feel, any malevolence towards Ireland. Mr. Heath is no Cromwell, and Mr. Wilson is surely no Lloyd George. Yet both Administrations have not so much failed in their Irish possibilities as found the problem too many sided for any single policy to apply. It seems to me that both Administrations have felt unable to formulate any viable long-term policies for Ireland because there have been simply too many variables, too many opposing interests to consider.
First of all, there is the legitimate interest of the legitimate Government of Northern Ireland to govern the people who elected it to office. It may be, as many noble Lords have suggested, that different electoral procedures would make this task simpler; but one can change electoral machinery without shooting anybody. The people who elected this Government of Northern Ireland to office are anxious to maintain their connection with the United Kingdom. There is no sign that Mr. Wilson's call, or any noble Lord's call, for the eventual unification of Ireland finds any favour with them. I was born and brought up in Ireland and I have a home there. I personally believe that eventual unification is desirable, but that belief is neither here nor there. There is no sign that it would, at present, cut any ice in the North of Ireland. There is no sign that even direct rule from Westminster would quiet their fears of being in the minority within the island as a whole, or pacify their preparations to see to what they interpret as their security. Time passes and things change. But to-day there is no sign of change.
902
Then there is the interest of the Government of the Irish Republic. They have seen a modest but definite upsurge in their country's prosperity. This may now be threatened—though I may say, happily, that there is no sign of its being destroyed. They have suffered political divisions and tensions besides which the internal affairs of our Labour Party look like altercations in your Lordships' House. They have seen their own legitimacy, the bedrock of their ability to govern, all but shot out from under them. They are no friends of the I.R.A. in any of its guises or disguises. But their legitimacy rests, as it must, upon public opinion. And, as your Lordships know, public opinion in the Irish Republic has moved from distrust and irritation towards the I.R.A. to a nervous tolerance, and from a nervous tolerance to out-and-out support. It distresses me to have to say this, but I have seen it happen.
Then there is the interest of that section of the population of Northern Ireland who are, rightly or wrongly, be it out of ignorance or fear or legitimate grievance, alienated from the Government of Northern Ireland, from their own Government. They are the people on whom world opinion is focused to-day. They are a factor in American electoral politics, and in the conduct of international diplomacy at the United Nations. Their alienation—and the tragic alienation of their political representatives—from the forms of government in Northern Ireland is at the heart of this problem. In the last few days the alienation has been compounded: the distance between Londonderry and Stormont was always large; it is the distance between Londonderry and London that has widened.
My Lords, next, what of the interest of the British Government? I cannot, of course, speak for the Government, but I believe that their Parliamentary supporters can, and indeed ought to, use Parliament as a way of projecting, of amplifying to the world outside and to Ireland especially, the so much misrepresented British interest. The British Government interest, as I see it, is the equitable discharge of its responsibilities under present law; the withdrawal, so soon as it is consistent with those responsibilities, of our sorely tried forces; the reconstruction of an order whose

903
breakdown is detrimental not only to the necessary angels of justice and truth but to the flesh and blood of economic prosperity. For let no one make the mistake that, whatever the divisions between the island called Britain and the island called Ireland, between community and community, between North and South, all our economic fortunes are interdependent. Mr. Lynch knows this; Mr. Faulkner knows this; Mr. Heath knows this. It is tragic that at a time when the Governments of this country and of the Irish Republic are both convinced that this interdependence is but a part of a wider interdependence within the European Economic Community that the divisions between Ireland and England should now appear wider than the divisions between either country and the continental mainland.
If I speak, my Lords, of yet another interest—the interest of the I.R.A.—I may risk doing violence both to language and to morality. Yet terrorists do have interests—at least in their own interpretation of them. Although the I.R.A. is a split, even a schizophrenic body, it has, as my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence conceded, been successful in fusing its interest in the disintegration of order with what many ordinary decent Catholic people believe to be their own interest. I again regret to have to say this, but I believe that it has happened.
How then, my Lords, in all this Celtic tracery of conflicting interest, can our Government decipher a practical policy and hold fast to one? I believe that even opponents of this Government will say that they are singular and single-minded in the pursuit of the policies they believe in. This view, I found recently, held good even among the opponents of British policies at the United Nations. So can we, as Members of the British Parliament, as Back-Benchers, help in this quest for a policy? The cornerstone of the Government's purpose to date, as I see it, has been the European entry. I therefore agree with those noble Lords who have suggested that it is within the new European framework that the greatest hope for a long-term Irish policy is to be found. But it may even be, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, appeared to be hinting, that the European mainland is the most suit-
904
able venue for any pan-Irish summitry. But before any such summitry is either feasible or has a chance to be fruitful, it seems to me that the present terrible tension must be taken out of the situation. I do not believe that the present atmosphere in the island is conducive to long-term, large-scale initiatives at present, however politically ingenious or however humanly imaginative. I am not committed to being uncritical of the Government: I believed at the time that the political consequences of setting up internment camps outweighed their usefulness in terms of security, and I said so. I never thought to find myself in agreement with Mr. Paisley, but I did agree with what he said in Parliament yesterday on this matter. All the same, in the short term, in the present atmosphere of nightmare, all one can urge on the Government is the ordeal of patience and the courage that that requires.
Finally, my Lords, this does not mean that there is nothing that can be done, here and now. Politics is a continuous process and initiatives need to be prepared. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Gore-Booth, that public relations between the peoples of Britain and Ireland—or rather, I should perhaps say, between the English and the Irish styles in politics—are bad. That is why, though I have considerable respect for my noble and right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence, I believe that it would be wise to create a Minister for Ireland. Such a Minister could interpret the feelings of the people of England to the two Governments in Ireland. He could present the already extant interdependent economic policies in the form of political initiatives. At present, too many people in Ireland simply are not aware of them.
As I have urged patience upon the Government, so would I urge tolerance upon them—tolerance of that very different attitude towards the conduct of affairs which obtains in Ireland, whether in the North or in the South. Tolerance and the desire for a machinery of communication are, in my view, the surest guarantee of that stance against civil and political anarchy which the Governments of this country and of the Province, and indeed of the Republic, are taking, are

905
right to take and must go on taking. There must be change in Northern Ireland, but there must be no change—and here I congratulate the Government—in attitude towards those in Ireland or elsewhere in the world whose political aims are to destroy politics, to act above and beyond the law, and at whose hands men have always died, as in Ireland to-day they are dying.
8.2 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, the events of last Sunday in Derry have shocked not only all of us in this country, but people throughout the world. The news of police or troops opening fire on unarmed protesters, be it in Rhodesia, South Africa or Ireland, is becoming a terrifying frequent occurrence as more and more Governments of the day seek military solutions for political problems. The basic situation is not what the Government are at great pains trying to put across in Parliament and in the mass media. It is not a direct fight between the I.R.A. gunmen and the British Army. It is the direct result of the British and Stormont Governments' policy throughout the years. For years they would not listen. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, unemployment was allowed to reach over 40 per cent. More, they have been bent on suppressing the justified movement of the anti-Unionists, who have demanded an end to repression and discrimination, and the introduction of democratic rights. In 1969 conflict broke out from this movement, as all movements against injustice and repression end up, and British troops soon arrived. There is no doubt that present events are the result of the partition of Ireland in 1921, and only unification will be the final solution. I think the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made important constructive speeches on the future.
A deep and completely impartial inquiry into what happened on Sunday would be welcome, but rushing through the announcement of an inquiry by one man, Britain's Lord Chief Justice, a man of the British Establishment, cannot satisfy the Irish people. This idea lacks all imagination and shows how far we are from the state of mind of the Irish to-day. This step looks as if the British Government are hoping to head off the
906
demands for a complete change in Government policy now, and are determined to fight it out and get a military solution first. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, seemed to confirm this, and it was with great concern that I listened to him. I thought his speech was completely unstatesmanlike and unimaginative. He was not talking at all about human beings, about the Irish; he was just giving cold military statistics, and once or twice I thought he jumped the gun of the Lord Chief Justice's Inquiry. He was not in Ireland. and the accounts of what happened conflict. To-day, in The Times there have been reports of statements, made as they were lying in hospital, by the people wounded in that conflict. I think the noble Lord's speech was very inappropriate for to-day, when there has been this colossal demonstration at the funeral in Ireland of those killed last Sunday.
Let me make it quite clear that I am totally against the violence of the I.R.A. Provisionals. But they are human beings, for the most part young human beings, and, however much you may not agree with them or may hate them, they have beliefs and ideals, as had the liberation and nationalist movements in the past. I could not help feeling—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not misunderstand what I am saying—that his report was rather like the report of some of the Generals in the past who had been frustrated in their determination to wipe out resistance movements. Terms like "criminal thugs" and "unscrupulous murderers" are not good enough from a statesman, or from the Government Front Bench. Most of us still remember how we described the Mau Mau, the liberation movement in Kenya. We remember the awful names that we gave to them, and how we imprisoned Jomo Kenyatta for seven years.
Surely statesmanship is really understanding the enemy, understanding his power and hold over the people, and counteracting that with politics. Seeking a military solution will lead to more and more bloodshed. Therefore I think that the policy of internment must be ended, because through it we have cemented a bond between the Catholics and the I.R.A. Those whom we think we have a case against should be brought to public trial straight away, and the whole

907
system of internment should be wiped out. I think that the Paratroops should be flown back to Britain as quickly as possible, because one can imagine how their presence must now feel to the ordinary people of Ireland, and the rest of the British troops should be withdrawn from the Catholic districts and confined to barracks. As a political step, a Bill of Rights should be introduced immediately as a beginning. In this debate this afternoon the only constructive speeches have come from this side of the House. I do not think there has been anything at all constructive from the other side. I believe we must not just be content that these demands have been made on this side of the House, but must realise that the fight for such demands is as much the responsibility of the whole Labour Movement in Britain as it is of the people of Ireland themselves.
8.10 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Longford is a Roman Catholic, and is highly sensitive to the wrongs which have been inflicted over many years upon the inhabitants of Southern Ireland as well as on the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. In this, as I am sure he knows, he has my sympathy and the sympathy of a great many (if not all) of your Lordships, and of course of anyone who is concerned about civil rights. But to me this is not just a matter of civil rights: it is a matter of religion. I am an atheist—or, to put it scientifically, an agnostic, because I do not say that there is no God; I say I do not know that there is one.
I have always been, I like to think, moderate in the expression of my views, partly through temperament and partly through the belief (inculcated, I have no doubt, through much that I have read) that the teaching of Christianity has much to do with the teaching of the sort of ethical behaviour which we admire in this country—and I expressed this view some years ago in your Lordships' House in a debate on religious education. But I have slowly turned to the conclusion that too often Christianity has had not so much to do with the teaching of good and kindly behaviour as many people would like to think. The events in Southern United States, Southern Africa and Nigeria, and now, above all, in Ulster, have had a considerable influence on my thinking. Indeed, I have come to
908
the conclusion that the amount of human misery which belief in Christianity has caused through the ages has frequently outweighed what it may have done for good.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Has he had a good look at the atheist regimes of this century? He surely must think they are a good deal worse than anything the Christians can put up.
LORD RAGLAN: Yes, my Lords, there are sonic very despicable atheist regimes, like the ones in Russia, for instance—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Or the Nazis.
LORD RAGLAN: —but I think they merely took over from the Byzantines and the Russian Orthodox Churches. My Lords, I believe that the evil that in some respects lies in Christianity comes from the celebration and glorification of a brutal death, an unpleasant murder, and that this, combined with its emphasis upon poverty and acute distress as ways of going to Heaven, has made Christianity a justification and a motivation for behaviour which, by our modern standards in this country, is considered grossly inhumane.
My Lords, my Christian friends may say that the people who perpetrated these deeds were not true Christians, that they were misguided. But in my view this is not the case: they were true, believing Christians. The Crusaders, Catharine de Medici and Luther, who was responsible for the slaughter of the Catholic peasants, were all Christians. At the same time as Christianity preaches peace it seems to incite to violence, and it tolerates oppression. Indeed, one of the most poignant moments I have ever had in your Lordships' House—perhaps the most poignant moment—was last month, during the debate on violence in Southern Africa, when I listened to my noble friend Lord Soper struggling to reconcile his beliefs with his loyalty to certain teachings of his faith. Indeed, great and good man that he is. he got into such difficulties that my neighbour on these Benches nudged me and asked me, "What is he saying?" I replied, "He is in a muddle ", and said that I was not surprised. But so far today it is the noble Lord with whom I

909
have found most agreement in regard to this situation and the cause of the trouble.
My Lords, if anything was needed to underline the violence which lies or seems to be tolerable within the doctrine of Christianity, then the situation in Northern Ireland is just such an instance. I do not know whether it is possible for modern-clay mainland Britons, who have been reared in a tradition (albeit a recent one) of religious freedom and of tolerance, to comprehend the Northern Ireland situation if they have not studied Christian history. For it is a fact—and I believe it should be stated—that in spite of the outward show and all the talk and all the propaganda to the contrary, mainland Britain is no longer a Christian country. But Ireland, on the other hand, is one. There, especially in Northern Ireland, you are judged or distinguished not by the kind of person you are but by your religion and your loyalty to it. There you have a well-preserved (indeed, a fossilised) specimen of a 16th or 17th century sectarian confrontation, and we witness at first hand the special type of viciousness which Christians traditionally used to reserve for those of another sect.
My noble friend Lord Longford says that there is nothing like the Northern Ireland situation anywhere else, though I repeat that there have been numerous instances in the past. I can indeed find something for him very much like it in Glasgow at the present day. These people are urged on in fear, hatred and contempt of each other by their priests and hard-line men on both sides, and no one dares or cares to make a conciliatory gesture because of them in case they are accused of disloyalty to their sect. It is what my right honourable friend Mr. Harold Wilson called a theocratic society. You have to be Christians all, in appearance, anyway.
Your Lordships are asking: what is to be done? Hatred and bitterness go so deep that the I.R.A. plant bombs indiscriminately, and of course place crosses and sing requiems over their fallen and are harboured by the Catholic population. The Orangemen provoke and scorn and bang drums, sing hymns and psalms and look to the British Army to maintain some sort of order. One's hopes for change often rest with young people, who are resilient, adaptable, not
910
entrenched; but in this case the sectarian schools inculcate the religion from earliest youth, together with large helpings of slanted and romantically-dressed-up history to help engender the traditional antipathy. What chance is there in this atmosphere of anyone coming to the top who holds the moral values of (I must say this to my noble friend Lord Soper) un-Christian mainland Britain of the 1970s? I heard Miss Devlin speak yesterday. She is the sort of fighter who is thrown up in a situation like this. I believe that she was both awed and frightened by what she saw in Derry on Sunday. I know that if I were her I should be. Is there any hope, with her and her friends, I wonder, of better things to come? There is none, so far as I can see, with Mr. Paisley. He is too full of the righteousness of his religion.
The best hope that I see is for some younger people to come forward who have backgrounds from either side but who have the courage to declare their own lack of religious conviction and a determination to proclaim their atheism as something constructive, good and not to be hidden. In my belief only atheists or agnostics, or those to whom religion is a personal and not an overt belief, can gain trust from both sides. It is only when religion ceases to be the dominating factor and when Ireland begins to work towards being a modern, civilised, non-theocratic society, that the people will start to learn to live together. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, when he questions the choice of the Lord Chief Justice to be a one-man tribunal. If I were an Irish Catholic, I should see him as I might well see the troops, as representative of Anglo-Saxon Protestantism, not believing a word he said if it in any way exonerates the troops. The fact that he has been appointed with the best intentions as the first and best person that the Government could think of indicates to me how little they understand the realities of the situation.
My Lords, I never thought that I should ever find myself making such a speech to your Lordships, for in our speeches we are used to leaving one another's personal beliefs alone; but it has been dragged out of me by the events in Derry last Sunday. I think that upon this overriding matter of religion there has been almost a conspiracy of silence.

911
But unless religion is recognised for the force that it is; that both sides are in fear, hatred and contempt of each other because they are of opposing sects of the same religion; unless enough people are prepared to confess to, and like my noble friend, Lord Soper, to be ashamed of and to condemn out loud the historic evils of Christianity (as exemplified in Northern Ireland) as well as to extol the good they believe that Christianity contains, we shall never understand the situation and there will never be a permanent settlement in Ireland.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask two simple questions? Would he think it right to draw a distinction between what is colloquially known as "Churchianity" and Christianity? Secondly, would he be inclined to believe that most of the strictures—which I did not interrupt because I wanted to hear the full flourish of his condemnation—against the Church are based on the standards of the very Jesus who ought to have founded it and has been so largely neglected by it?
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, my noble friend has asked two, I suppose, quite predictable questions. I do not distinguish between "Churchianity" and Christianity except that one is overt and one is concealed. I think that in my speech I condemned too-overt Christianity, militant Christianity; but I am happy to leave him to believe what he wishes.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, again before the noble Lord sits down, while congratulating him on his courageous speech I would ask him: does he not agree that, with all respect, it was a great pity that the noble Earl who initiated this debate should walk out at the very time he could perhaps have defended his point of view?
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask one other question? Am I right in thinking that the noble Earl when talking about religion meant "irreligion" and that he was confusing it with a kind of hatred which is born in the name of religion just as I am afraid a kind of soporific euphorism has sometimes been born in the name of politics?
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I tried to show in my speech that violence and viciousness have existed up to the present
912
day among strongly believing Christians. We in this House, I am sure, condemn it, but there are people who do not and who encourage it.
8.24 p.m.
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, it is a commonplace to say that there can be no military solution to the problems of Northern Ireland but, as so many noble Lords have said this afternoon, we cannot even talk to most of those most closely concerned until there is a much greater degree of peace and order in that unhappy country. Therefore I want to consider very briefly the ways in which the doctrine of minimum force might be reconsidered with a view to avoiding incidents such as happened last Sunday.
The violent opponents of British rule in Northern Ireland can be broadly divided into two categories: the hard core of ruthless assassins and a much larger hooligan element who do not normally stoop to murder. The former are clearly difficult to deal with, and it will take months, or even years, of patient police and intelligence work before they can be finally eliminated. So far, even when they are known, it has been almost impossible to bring them to trial because those who should give evidence against them in court wish, not unreasonably, to preserve their own lives and the lives of their families. The hooligan element, however, though intrinsically less vicious, is becoming responsible for the loss of almost as many lives, both civilian and in the security forces, as those killed in individual assassinations by gun or by bomb. This is because they are used, sometimes unwittingly, to set up situations in which the I.R.A. can open fire on troops with a sporting chance of escaping themselves because the troops dare not return the fire. Moreover, it must be remembered that the death of an innocent civilian, if fire is returned in such circumstances, is worth far more to the I.R.A. than anything they can gain by killing some unfortunate soldier.
I think that this may shock some noble Lords, but there seems to be quite a considerable proportion of the hooligan element who so far have regarded rioting as a game, relying on the policy of the British Government and the restraint and discipline of the British Army. It is not for nothing that the Irish have a reputation for courage and for loving a good

913
"scrap". It seems to me that the use of such weapons as rubber bullets and water cannon fits in entirely with that sort of philosophy. Unfortunately, rough games, as many of us were told in our childhood, usually end in tears. Hitherto, the security forces, in a praiseworthy attempt to avoid over-reaction, seemed to have allowed such activities as bus-burning, building barricades and stoning troops to continue for considerable periods before taking any action. It is only when the situation becomes altogether intolerable that they sally forth with the intention of arresting some of those involved. It is in the confusion of such metes, that the gunmen are so well able to pursue their own evil ends. I can understand the reluctance to take drastic action until it is essential. However, it must be easier to stop a riot or to disperse an illegal assembly at the start rather than when it is in full swing and tempers are aroused. Moreover, if it were generally known that anyone taking part in any form of violence or illegal activity ran a real risk of being shot if he should not be arrested, then I believe that those who treat this wretched situation as a dangerous sport would desist from it.
It might seem more ruthless to adopt such a policy but it would be equally in accord with the doctrine of minimum force that we all support because there would be a lot less sorrow at the end. If the streets could be cleared, and kept clear, there would be a reasonable chance of discussing a political solution in a calm and reasoned manner; for it is the rioting, the crowd behaviour and the inevitable consequences that raise tempers, more especially, of course, if they involve the accidental death of someone not criminally involved. I believe that the assassinations and bombings which we cannot yet put a stop to will increasingly sicken even those who support the political aims of the I.R.A. until even the latter realise that such activities are not helping their cause. I am quite sure, my Lords, that both the Government and the Army have already given a great deal of thought to this problem. I only ask them to consider once more whether the policy which they have followed, for reasons of humanity, may not in the end cost more lives than one of earlier and, if necessary, firmer action.
8.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, you cannot divorce history from the present situation. So said the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, during the debate on the coal mines last Monday. How true that is of mining; how much truer it is of Ireland! There was a day in 1922 when Lloyd George was asked by friends how he was getting on in his discussions with de Valera which had been running for two or three weeks. He replied, "Not very fast; he has only just got to George III."That is one of the obstacles of negotiating in the present in Ireland. You can, however, make the mistake of inflating the present with dramatic overtones, and it seems to me that that is happening in a kind of explosion of emotion over the events of last Sunday.
Until these events occurred, to me, "Bloody Sunday" was a Sunday in 1920 when a certain number of officers—I cannot now remember whether it was 11 or 19—were murdered on a Sunday morning in Ireland, in their hotels in the presence of their wives. I can well remember how passionately I felt about it at the time. But these are not the things which determine the course of history; they are unhappy events through which we have to plough, and I see no reason why the security forces should in any way be diverted from their task by these events. Indeed, my Lords, I endorse all that I have heard about placing security as the main, principal consideration at the present time. Security should dominate, and my only doubt is whether it has been made to dominate, at any rate in time.
As my wife and I, in Somerset, look at the newspapers, how often have we seen, until comparatively recently, photographs of members of the I.R.A. in uniform on public occasions in full view, not in Dublin but in the North. Why was this allowed for so long? Why were marches not banned? Surely the military—and I am a military man—would have called earlier, had they been free to do so, for the banning of these provocative marches by both sides. Even when the marches were banned, are we to take it that the security authorities were not hampered in some way by having to allow 10,000 people to accumulate before they decided to thwart them and to divert them to somewhere else? Were I the

915
commanding officer on the spot, I would nip these things in the bud. No 10,000 people would ever get near to assembling together. Why are they allowed to'? When you produce a tremendous volume of people, angry and throwing missiles of all sorts, it is only in the last minute that something happens; it is an excusable event, totally unresembling the assassination of people in their homes.
My Lords, I am wondering whether the Army, which arrived in the North, not with an enthusiastic welcome but with at any rate some moderate satisfaction on the part of the Catholic community, has not found itself alienated from the population by having to be concerned with the internment of people presented to them by Stormont on a black list. That, I think, was confirmed by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. The noble Lord spoke in most moderate terms because, in his position, he does not want to make agitations at the present time. But as a Cross-Bencher of no importance it is open to me to call attention to this fact. Surely that is what has reduced our excellent Army to the guise of the agents of the oppressors, when they arrived to liberate the oppressed. Therefore, while I endorse everything that has been said by speakers from the Opposition and Liberal Benches regarding the transfer of security from Stormont to Westminster, I cannot see that that alone will have the effect that those who sponsor it desire; because it will only mean that Westminster will be propping up an impotent regime and will be the agent of Stormont again. Therefore I see no alternative but to withdraw not only security but also politics from Northern Ireland. It is justice that they want in Northern Ireland, not politics. That would be my feeling as regards the future.
I look over the present situation after fifty years. I was among the Catholics who supported the principle of Partition. I do not like the idea of forcing anyone—whether a Moslem, as I have often argued in this House, or a Protestant, as I say to-day—within political boundaries which are uncongenial to him. I fight in order that he may join the political society that he likes. Nevertheless, my Lords, I have always regretted that this particular partition was a bogus partition. It added a number of people with affilia-
916
tions to the South; it threw them into the North to make the North viable. That is the legacy from which they are suffering to-day, and it is producing its own Nemesis. Am I right, my Lords?
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, who, not long ago, in some intervention in another debate, called our attention to the fact that the population portents are such that whereas to-day the Catholics are 40 per cent. and the Protestants 60 per cent., there are already a majority of Catholics in the schools and therefore the day is in sight—that is to say, within twenty years—when there will be a majority of Catholics who, one may suppose, will want to vote to join the South. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton: I cannot see Irish unity as a prospect, a practical prospect, for to-day. If it is on the agenda. it will be talked about, and when people have finished talking they will get on with something else. I cannot see it over the horizon at all. Suppose that a position is reached where in 10, 15 or 20 years' time 51 per cent. of the North are Catholic. Will it be desirable that the Protestants of Northern Ireland should be carried over by this democratic change in their position into being incorporated with the Irish Republic? I suggest that, in conjunction with the possibility of a united Ireland, the possibility of a segregated Protestant community as part and parcel of the United Kingdom should be considered. After all, we are not concerned with a huge nation; it is not much bigger than the population of a big town—1,800,000 all told. It is not a situation where political independence or self-rule is, of necessity, the best form. They might be very much better treated under our proposals for local government reform as a Region of the United Kingdom, and be better off for it.
These things I hold to be of the future. To-day I feel sure that there is only one political initiative to be taken, if at all, in conjunction with the question of security, which I put entirely at the top, and that is the withdrawal not only of control over security in Northern Ireland on the part of Stormont, but its political control. I cannot see that any other political initiative, and particularly Irish unity, will do anything but befog the issue and put before people a mirage which everybody knows is not over the political horizon.
8.41 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I must apologise that, owing to other duties in this building, I was unable to hear all the opening speeches. However, I have furnished myself with notes of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. I was particularly sad that I was unable to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, because I think that he and I approach these matters, to some extent at any rate, on common ground. I was much interested in what the noble Earl who has just sat down said, because he from his personal experience, and I at second hand, as it were, through my late father, have strong feelings about what was not done in 1920 and 1921. I should like to revert to that point in a moment, because I believe that Ireland is one of the places where history still has some significance. I think it is not always true to suggest that the lessons of history are necessarily applicable, but Ireland seems to me to be an exception to this rule. I think that some study of history there really does have relevance to the present time.
Before I come on to that point in the short time that I propose to take at this late hour—and it will be the main subject of my speech—I should like to make one or two preliminary observations. It was exactly three months ago that I last addressed your Lordships' House on the subject of Northern Ireland, during the debate on the Queen's Speech. I said at that time that it seemed to me that we were descending into an abyss. Nothing that has happened since then has halted that descent. On the contrary, the atmosphere in which we have been debating this subject to-day, by the very skilful though no doubt fortuitous timing of my noble friend Lord Longford, shows that all of us are deeply concerned at the lack of progress towards a solution. As someone said on the radio last night: "Things are bloodier, not better". This must be a very depressing thought for us all.
I do not wish to go into the events of last weekend beyond saying that I think the saddest comment on it was the remark made by Bernadette Devlin, when she said that for the 13 who died 26 should be killed and she would not weep a salt tear for them. I thought that that was
918
the mark of tragedy. If a woman of her age can say that, then surely we have reached the depths. I say this with great admiration for her courage—I think she is a most courageous person—and with an understanding of the trouble that she has had both personally and politically. Nevertheless, if someone can reach that degree of nihilism, then I think this is the mark of the deepest tragedy in Irish affairs.
I hope very much that we shall not be misled by the emphasis that has been, quite understandably, placed on security, in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I was disturbed again to read in the account of the debate in another place yesterday a remark by the Minister, Lord Balniel, in which he referred to the growing desperation of the I.R.A. and suggested that this should bring us some comfort. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said in another context, this kind of thing can be quite misleading. This sort of remark was made so often in Ireland itself, in those desperate days of the Black and Tans. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out, at one moment the military forces may appear to be getting on top and we may regard this as possibly the beginning of the end. But it just is not so in a situation like Ireland. Although I am obviously strongly concerned that we should contain the attacks of the I.R.A. on innocent persons and property, to pretend that any security measures are going to solve this problem is, to my mind, a delusion. We have to look plainly in the political direction.
This is where I find the record of the present Government so discouraging. I think the tone of the speeches, both in another place and in our debate to-day, has somewhat changed from the speeches of a few months ago, and that in itself is perhaps encouraging. But what I find so discouraging is the bankruptcy of political initiative on the part of the Government. Such initiatives as have come at all in this situation have come mainly, I think I can fairly say, from my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr. Harold Wilson, who has done what is needed in this situation. He has tried to bring up possible alternatives, possible lines of approach, while not pretending that any

919
one of them is going to solve the problem —and of course it will not—to see in what way some progress can be made.
But what have we had from the Government? When we last debated this matter we were told that there was a Green Paper. What has happened to the Green Paper? We have heard no more of it. I hope that we may possibly hear something more from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when he comes to reply. But so far there has been almost a complete blank. We understood that the Government were in general agreement with Mr. Harold Wilson that there should be open-ended talks. I do not underestimate the difficulties, but the longer one goes on the more difficult it is to get open-ended talks, because doors are being closed all the time, and not opened. Anyone who saw, for instance, the reports in this morning's papers of Mr. Faulkner's remarks yesterday must at least be apprehensive as to the possibility of getting anything open-ended where he is concerned. The longer one leaves this, the more difficult it seems to me it will be to get anything on the lines that I think were more or less generally agreed between the two Front Benches, the Government and the Opposition, in the autumn.
Various suggestions have been made. For example, it has been suggested that there should be a senior Minister in the Government who should devote his whole time to what is, I suggest, the most crucial problem facing the Government to-day. Unemployment is indeed important, but that can be dealt with by more normal methods. The situation in Northern Ireland is not normal, and should surely be dealt with as a case for special consideration, which just cannot be woven in with Departmental responsibilities, however conscientious the Ministers concerned may be. It seems to me that we are left in a vacuum of policy, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, and we appear to be making very little progress. Various noble Lords have said in the debate that they believe that when we are all members of the European Community this will bring salvation. I hope they are right; but, quite frankly, I would rather see our making some progress before we have reached that point, because this seems to me to be merely putting matters off.
920
I said that I would refer to history, and I think that, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has said, one of the facts of history which has surely led to the position in which we find ourselves to-day—this position of acute dilemma as to how, on the one hand, to meet the wishes of the Catholic minority in the North and at the same time safeguard the position of the Protestant majority—is that when the boundary between the North and South was laid down in 1921, nobody then thought that boundary was to be permanent. Michael Collins and Arthur Griffiths would never have signed that Treaty, I am sure, had they thought that boundary was to be entirely unchanged. The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland of the time believed in his heart, I am sure, that there would be some changes. In the event, as your Lordships will recall, a Boundary Commission was set up under a liberal-minded judge from South Africa. The representative of the Free State (as it then was) was a very distinguished Gaelic scholar but not, I think, a very good negotiator. The results of the efforts of that Boundary Commission were such that no one wished to put their recommendations into effect: in fact those recommendations were not published until very many years afterwards. The net result of the recommendations would have been to have transferred some 24,000 persons from the North to the South together with some 135 acres of land but this was well below the expectations of the South and I believe also the anticipations of the North, and certainly of Whitehall, at that time.
I am putting this forward as a matter which we ought at least to discuss, perhaps not in the immediate future, as one possible way of removing this log jam. Ought one not to be considering how and at what stages one might advance towards a possible united Ireland, but remembering all the time that one has to protect the interests of the Protestants who passionately wish to retain their connection with the United Kingdom? I found myself in very great sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who suggested, as I understood him, that really as an interim stage—ultimately one would hope that there would be voluntary unification of the entire island—one might suggest an adhesion, if they wished, of those parts of Northern

921
Ireland which are adjacent to the Republic. One would then have the North-Eastern enclave, the Protestant enclave, as a region of the United Kingdom, with the government appropriate to such a country—I would suggest, as a Welshwoman, no more and no less than Wales. We do not yet know what the Crowther Commission are going to suggest, but I would think it should be something of that order. That is the price the Protestants would pay for maintaining their organic connection with the United Kingdom.
When the Treaty discussions were going on fifty years ago the representatives of the South, Arthur Griffiths and Michael Collins, pleaded more than once that there should be a plebiscite, referendum, or whatever you like to call it, not on the Six Counties basis but on a district basis, because this would give a very different pattern. If you tell the minority in Northern Ireland that they have to wait for twenty or thirty years, until such time as the Catholic population might or might not catch up with the Protestant population, this surely would have no effect at all on the emotions and attitudes of those who are living there to-day. It does not seem to them to bring any realistic basis for hope, and it seems to me that one should at least discuss, among other things, this kind of approach. I did not have the opportunity of listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, but I understood him to be suggesting something on these lines from the reference which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made to his speech. I think this is one way in which we might be looking forward to some sort of interim progress.
Mr. Harold Wilson, speaking in another place yesterday, said, in effect, that he was coming more and more to the view that there could be no ultimate solution that did not aim at a united Ireland. It seems to me that it is not sufficient to say that. Those of us who hold that view—and I think a number of Members of your Lordships' House do —surely have the responsibility for suggesting ways in which that result might ultimately be achieved. It is for that reason that I have referred to past history, and suggested that we might at least
922
look at it and see whether, by going back fifty years, we can find some way of taking a step forward. I do not think for one moment that what I have suggested would be immediately acceptable—it would not be immediately practical—but I feel so dubious about the suggestions which have been put forward. One involved waiting until the population change brings a solution of its own. It seems to me that if we have to live through twenty or thirty years before we known what is going to happen, as things are going there would be very little of Northern Ireland left. With the polarisation which has taken place in the last few months, although obviously a coalition Government is out of the question, even the suggestion of a community Government seems to me dubious, and we now ought to be examining suggestions that even a few months ago might have seemed extreme.
In conclusion, my Lords, what depresses me most of all is the bankruptcy of policy and ideas on the part of Her Majesty's Government. They appear to lack the imagination and intellectual force needed in this situation. I am very much strengthened in this view when I study history and see how, in the equally desperate situation of 1918–1922, it needed the strength and vitality, on the one side, of somebody at least a little like Lloyd George and someone, on the other side, of the stature of Lord Birkenhead or Winston Churchill to bring about a solution in 1920–21 which, if anybody had suggested it as likely or probable even two or three years earlier, would have been almost laughed out of court. We are not in quite so desperate a situation, but we are in a very serious one indeed, and it seems to me that much greater measures are needed than any which have so far been suggested by Her Majesty's Ministers.
9.0 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to deal with this subject this evening under three main headings. The first is to debunk the idea that this is purely religion. I should like to deal with the I.R.A. propaganda and our own inadequate protection of our troops from our own and foreign media, I should like to consider the expense and the privileged position of the Irish in this country, and I should like

923
to suggest a solution. The noble Earl, Lord Longford. and I—he is not in his place at the moment—arc both Catholics. He is a good one, new and vigorous; I am from an old, degenerate, English Catholic family. We Catholics have several representatives in your Lordships' House—I can see two at this moment. We are all related, because in the persecution days we had to intermarry, for nobody else would touch us with a barge pole. By and large, we were Stuart supporters, and in those troubled times we had no use for Dutch William. Many of us suffered for our beliefs, both political and religious, and so did the majority of people in Ireland. Herein lies the difference: we, the English Catholics, were persecuted in isolation, the Irish in large groups. It is much easier to take it that way. Gradually, starting in 1829, we were less discriminated against until nowadays there are very few, if any, instances of religious intolerance. We have forgiven and forgotten. Not so sections of the tribes from the other island. Though they have lived side by side for 300 years or more those sections —not all of them—nurture ancient hates.
This House contains many names which show a Dutch, Huguenot, German, French or Irish origin, all now considered as one as if they had been here from the Conquest or before. In the other island there is a considerable faction who have, for a variety of reasons, refused to integrate or forget, who still bear the scars of 300 years or more ago, who lack the basic thesis of Christianity, who refuse to love their neighbours as themselves. Such is the pathological, historical and fanatical hatred of this country and all things English by a section of the population of that island that I despair of what people keep referring to as a political solution. Only the surgeon's knife can cure the ulcer of Ulster. I have said before in your Lordships' House that I am convinced that such is this feeling—which any civilised race would have overcome centuries ago—that if at the time of the Reformation England had remained Catholic, Ireland would have gone Protestant out of sheer cussedness.
In recent years this difference has been accentuated by segregation in schooling, and both factions are to blame for that, especially in the North. In the South the minority is such a small one that it
924
has not mattered so much, although articles attacking the Protestants there have recently appeared—one in particular by my old school friend Noel Browne, a member of the Dail. The trouble is that in Northern Ireland there is a sufficiently large proportion of bigots in both tribes and they have us caught in the middle. My suggestion is that we get out from in between in double quick time. When I was staying in Belfast not so long ago my host said to me, "If you thought if I introduced you to any of the leading Catholics here that they would accept you as one of them, you would have another think coming. But don't worry; if I had the Archbishop of Canterbury here the other tribe wouldn't have anything to do with him, either".
I should like now to deal with the second of my points, the treatment of our Forces by our own and other media. We tend to forget that at the beginning of this trouble there was a genuine attempt by the Governments at Stormont and Westminster to put right some of the injustices to the minority in Northern Ireland. The extreme Orange tribe was menacing, and the Army were committed by the Government of the time to protect the Fenian tribe. Were they not popular! There were cups of tea, and all were welcome. What I have never been able to understand, any more than have one or two of my Southern Irish friends, is why we stopped there. We stayed on the edge of the Catholic areas, and we have never been in there since. Government writ has never run in large areas.
That temporary popularity did not suit the extremes of that tribe—that is, the I.R.A.—so they immediately set about working overtime to discredit the Army. This was foreseen by the G.O.C. at the time, who warned—and you probably saw it on television—that the honeymoon period would not last long. It did not. One of the main reasons for this was the inbuilt disadvantage we inherited with our unfettered Press and television, plus the expertise of the I.R.A. to distort the truth. What also tends to be forgotten is that the Army were not sent in to defend the Orange Order, which was the other tribe, who tried to control, failed and then sacked their leader because he showed signs of being civilised and not tribal. They also did that to his successor. It is interesting to me. as a

925
Devonian, because they both came originally from a North Devon family with which I am also connected. It is also interesting because there are two branches of that family, one Catholic, one Protestant; they never did, and still do not, hate each other.
In the reforming zeal the "B "Specials were abolished and the reform of the police started. It is no time now to go into the rights and wrongs of those, but I have my opinions on one or two things that took place then. One thing is certain: by the time that the I.R.A. were getting going at their professed enemy—the unfortunate British soldier—the normal police intelligence was ruined by the way the aforementioned reforms were carried out. Whatever the rights or wrongs of it, no intelligence by which the Army could protect itself was available until internment and interrogation. Then we got it, and that caused the murders to increase, because the revenge motive in the Fenian tribe is something impregnated into them from birth. Let there be no doubt that there are several people in internment who would rather stay there than be let out now for an I.R.A. vengeance. Night after night —and during the day as well—our troops have been assaulted, jeered at, thrown at, bombed at, and generally abused. One letter I received said that no one in England seemed to realise what it was like having to compress one's lips and fight back natural reaction to the obscene insults continually thrown at one, especially knowing that the harridans and their children were there shouting and stoning, acting as a cover for the ever-waiting gunman.
One day, for example, in Derry, while this was going on a gunman fired and killed a little girl. The headlines in all the Press and the television said that she was killed in cross-fire. But cross-fire means two sides firing—and not a shot was fired by the troops. Why was it that just at that occasion that friend of the gunman, Mr. Hume, was there? Well, I know why he was there. Why did he rush up and down smelling the barrels of the soldiers' rifles? Because he wanted to pin this on them. As it happened, they had not fired a shot; but so far as the world knew the child was killed in cross-fire.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not think it an impertinence if I intervene at this point. I have not heard the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, but I just caught the words "Mr. Hume ", and he is a man of the highest integrity. A suggestion that a man like Mr. Hume would indulge in a practice of this kind is so far from the facts as I know them that I cannot accept it.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, tell us what evidence he has for asserting that Mr. Hume is a friend of gunmen?
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, the answer to the second question first is that I will show the noble Lord the letter. The other question I have forgotten.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord was caught in what he called "cross-fire ".
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, that was the term used in the Press. What I am getting at is that if somebody says a person is killed—as was said of this child—in cross-fire, it implies that fire took place from both the troops and the gunmen. All I am saying is that on that particular occasion the troops had not fired.
Again, look at the way the television reported the planted story of those two I.R.A. women officers who were shot while firing from the back of a car. Their funeral was of course proof of their status, because whenever an I.R.A. officer is killed the I.R.A. have been turning out, uniforms and all. I think that these banned organisations should not be allowed to be so provocative. Take Magillygan Camp. When the British soldiers were there no improvement was made in accommodation: showers were communal and a long way from accommodation; 20 soldiers to a Nissen hut; television, then paid for by the soldiers, was black and white. Now, the internees have 12 to a hut; each hut has four showers; each hut has colour television, paid for by the taxpayer. A set of four huts is a games hut, with billards, pingpong, et cetera. A soldier writes:
"For God's sake show up this nonsense, destroy this liberal monster that threatens to sap our morale and let's start treating prisoners,

927
murderers and their accomplices as the scoundcls and blackguards they are."
Our media, but even more so the foreign media, I feel, have little sense of proportion. What can we expect now that Dublin has engaged an American-run, Geneva-based, public relations firm? I do not think one need go into that. They had the Biafra account, a point that we mentioned the other day. I have been told by a friend in Canning House that Miss Bernadette Devlin is now being painted as Joan of Arc. I do not know what that will make Mr. Maudling.
I have been receiving a lot of I.R.A. propaganda, mainly with a Liverpool postmark and including an attached diatribe from the Irish Weekly, the Irish Press, the Irish Times, which shows the extent of the misrepresentation South of the Border. This is now being disseminated throughout the world. Why do we allow these self-inflicted wounds? I have a copy of the Western Morning News, with an account of the burial of Private Stetford, of my own regiment; underneath another report says, "Exeter University international socialists invited an I.R.A. spokesman to their meeting."
Another thing I wish to dwell on is the assiduous propaganda which has been generated recently by certain people—not, so far, by those responsible, I am glad to say—that the Government and the Opposition are entirely opposed on this question of Northern Ireland and the troops. My Lords, when I was a soldier the Government of my country was a Labour Government. That was when I served during the troubles in Palestine and Malaya. We were very grateful that the country which we thought we were serving in the job we were doing was, so far as we knew, united. I only hope that, whatever happens in the conditions in Northern Ireland now, it will be seen by the troops to be from a military point of view a bipartisan policy.
Last Sunday the biggest success the I.R.A. have had yet took place and the biggest defeat that our own media have inflicted on our own forces since the thing began. The I.R.A. had three coat-trailing aims: to break the ban on marches, and put an intolerable strain on the forces, in an effort to contain them when they had ordinary day-to-day things to do; to provide cover for their gunmen (this is the habit in the Creggan area, the Bogside
928
and elsewhere), and to add to the Army's unpopularity; and I believe that a Sharpeville situation was bound to arise if anything happened. First, under the law they had no right to be there, nor will they have a right to be at Newry next Sunday. I believe that many people feel that if there are any murders the people who will be to blame will be those who have encouraged this sort of thing to happen. Take the programme on the B.B.C., for example, on which viewers telephone a question and the panel answers it. If the panel is to be three to one against the side you are on, or the side you think you are on, I do not think this is at all fair to the chaps who are listening.
"Without provocation says Lynch "—in the Evening News a couple of days ago. "Without provocation ", said those priests who appeared on television and so do a great many others. I want to know why they were there in the first place. The television showed iron bars and rocks being thrown at the troops, "without provocation ". Who ordained that this was not provocation? One young officer has written:
"Day after day, night after night, the Army is shot at, abused, ambushed and castigated. One day sonic of us will break. There will come a limit and the main cause will be our precious television. You cannot expect the men to take this for ever."
He had four men of his platoon wounded by nail bombs in the week before Christmas. I may say, on the lighter side, that he then added that of course his regiment has a friendly rivalry with another one, insinuating that it would be the other one that would break. Your Lordships may have seen on television one of these, I call them animals, come up and spit in the face of a soldier and then turn away. How many of your Lordships would have stood and taken it?
There has been a lot of propaganda about the Parachute Regiment and I was very glad to see that they were present here to-day. Earlier in the day there were quite a number of people present who were wearing the airborne forces tie. While on the subject, I believe that thinking members of the Opposition must be rueing the day when they abolished the fourteen infantry battalions. We could well do with them now. My own son has spent eight out of the last fifteen months in Londonderry, and is still there. I know there are several noble Lords here who now have, or have had, sons

929
serving in the Forces over there, and I wonder—my son would never forgive me for saying this—whether enough people realise the position. For example, do the parents in this country realise what this sort of thing means? So far as my own life is concerned, whenever I am out with my wife she is always saying, "Come on, we must get back or we shall miss the news ". That is what is going on all over this country, and it is a fact which I think some people tend to forget. When I read of the criticism, or even the indifference, of people I wonder why the perpetual strain of this abuse, bombs, sniping and so on, is not more strongly pointed out by our Press. When I read the foreign criticism I begin to wish that the Russian Army had the job; they would finish it in a day, à la Hungary. I ask myself what other Army in the world could have controlled that regiment of the three young men who were taken out and brutally murdered, shot in the back? What other Army in the world could have prevented that regiment from breaking loose and running riot through the area from which they thought the murderers had come?
Recently, and before last weekend, there was hysterical talk of people "putting the boot in" following a television episode; but I am afraid that leaves me cold. Trust them to emphasise that! It would take a better man than me, or many others, to suffer the months of abuse, sniping and bombing and not to "put the boot in" on every possible occasion. I also suggest that those who have not had experience of the strains of being under fire should have sufficient Christian humility to keep their mouths shut when it comes to passing judgment on things that have happened under such a strain.
My Lords, I now come to deal with the cost of this episode to the British taxpayer. I am referring to the cost in terms of hard cash not lives and anguish, with which I have been dealing. The Written Answer I received on January 18 was that the estimated expenditure for the year was £423 million. Of this sum we take £269 million paid by Northern Ireland taxpayers, which leaves £154 million. Add to that £20 million under the health agreement, £37 million under social services payments, £11
930
million under the Finance Act, £2 million under the agricultural remoteness grant, £30 million for farmers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, £20 million from the G.B. National Insurance Fund; add the £70 million to be borrowed from the National Loan Fund well, I think the total is somewhere around £400 million net before you start adding on the Services. My Lords, you can read it all in Hansard. In other words, to a very large degree we finance the social services and living expenses, for which, in thanks, they blow up the buildings, kill our men and create our widows and orphans. It seems, my Lords, that that "tribe" want to have their cake and eat it, and I do not see why they should. I suggest to the Government that unemployment and health benefit, which comes from my taxes, should not go to pay the harridans who stone or the snipers who shoot at my son. I object strongly to financing the blowing up of buildings; I object strongly to financing the health and education services of children born in hostels at the taxpayers' expense and educated in sectarian schools, and brought up to hate us and a large section of their fellow men.
Another thing I object to, and I have been bringing it up in your Lordships' House for the last nine years, is giving an alien, republican, largely anti-British, people a privileged position in this country as against pro-Monarchist British relations from Australia and New Zealand. I recognise that the majority of both tribes in the island are decent, moderate, civilised people. I have many cousins there. My complaint is that the majority is not big enough; the extremist minority in both tribes is too large. In October I came back to Heathrow from Brazil. Our three-man mission came in, and I, with my Australian passport, went through a gate which said, "Commonwealth passport holders", and the other two Members from another place went through a gate which said, "British passports and Republic of Ireland". They can come in freely; they can do so whether they are going to blow up the Post Office Tower or not. But on that particular occasion I was interrogated as to whether I should be allowed to stay here—by an Indian. Elsewhere in the world there have been large movements of people who have been

931
assimilated, and I keep wondering why Ireland is an exception.
To my mind there is only one ultimate solution—and here I agree with the noble Lord—unification of Ireland, under Dublin. If we put down the present rebellion as it is at the moment, it will only raise its ugly head again in five years. This suggestion, of course, will bring lots of cries of letting down our own people, an indissoluble part of the United Kingdom, et cetera. Granted all that: but the other tribe is like the elephant and never forgets and never forgives, and this ulcer can be cured only by the surgeon's knife. There are sufficient Irish in England who have no sense of loyalty to this country and who could well be returned to their own country to make room for those from the North who could not stand Dublin. Those who so dislike us should be made to go: take that 5,000 who paraded under the banners of the Republic in September. They have been allowed to have their cake and eat it for too long. Let us face facts. The decent Fenians have long integrated with their host country, so you would not lose your decent citizens from that country.
Your Lordships know that to-day the British Embassy has been burned down in Dublin. I think this is the time to let them bear the costs of the country, the whole of that island. Let us finish with this nonsense once and for all. Let us remove our men from this hostile population. By all means make arrangements whereby we do not force anyone to live under conditions he does not like, and it should be a two-way traffic. But I beg of the Government to make one thing quite clear: not another penny, bring our men back, and let the Irish do their own thing. And let us have a shilling off the income tax.
9.29 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the first four speeches of the debate this afternoon were of such a character and covered the field so fully that I thought there was a good case for ending the debate at that point. Looking round, I think there are a number of noble Lords who came to the same conclusion and acted upon it. Nevertheless, it is true that had the debate ended there we should have missed a good deal of real worth and value. I think we should
932
have been poorer, for example, had we not had the compassion of my noble friend Lord Brockway, or the sheer religious force of my noble friend Lord Soper, to put against the quite fearful pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan.
My noble friend Lord Longford brought to bear on this problem such a depth of emotion and experience and knowledge that I myself was profoundly moved at the degree of restraint he was able to show in opening this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, paid proper tribute to my noble friend and, if I may say so, in putting the case as lie did for those who serve under him he showed the same high standard of restraint, and I respected him, too. Although restraint has been called for (and when I hear the sort of speech to which we have just listened I think there is a great deal to be said for restraint), nevertheless, as my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, there is also a case for frankness. It is necessary on occasion to be frank, and if I have to condense the remarks that I have to say without putting in the sort of qualification which some of the assertions might demand, I trust that I shall be excused.
It used to be said of the Palestine controversy—which is, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I think said, in some respects depressingly similar—that the difficulty there was that it was a case of right versus right. It may be true that there is right on both sides of this utterly wretched conflict, but what is certainly true is that there is wrong on both sides; and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, to think about that. We shall never get near a solution until this fact is deeply and humbly accepted by both sides. This guilt factor in the respective cases of the North and South, the Nationalists and the Unionists, the Protestants and the Catholics, needs to be hammered home day after day if the frame of mind which will permit settlement is to be achieved.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the British Army have no reason to feel guilty, and do not feel guilty?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was not meaning, and did not say, that the British Army were on either side. The fate of the British Army is to be above

933
both sides, and that they suffer for it is one of the tragedies of the situation of the present day.
When we last debated this matter I asked that all forms of propaganda should be used to put over the British case, and I am sure we all agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had to say about the significance of proper propaganda. Something has been done since that last debate—a good deal has been done—but I was not thinking simply of the Army point of view on particular incidents; I was thinking of the whole basis of the British case. Of course one reason why our policy has not been put over in the clear and insistent way that I want is that clarity and insistence are not prominent elements in Her Majesty's Government's handling of this matter. Surely what my noble friend Lord Shackleton said, and what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, supported, is true; namely, that imagination and energy cannot readily be laid at the door of the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Maudling.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth observed that the British people do not have a good record in relation to Irish affairs. But I say—and I say it particularly to the noble Earl, Lord Arran—that if it is the people we are talking about and not necessarily Governments, I do not agree with the right reverend Prelate. The people of to-day, the British people, have shown a degree of tolerance, patience and generosity which compares more than favourably with the bloody intolerance of the Irish factions. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred in our last debate to the need for financial assistance in Northern Ireland, but I am bound to say that I agree with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, said when he detailed the amount of financial assistance which has been made available, and which could have been used for law-abiding, deserving development areas in England, Scotland and Wales.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, the financial sacrifices made by the people of England, Scotland and Wales, and the tolerance which they have shown to the Irish people, and not least to the Eire citizens living in this country,
934
has been for no corresponding benefit at all so far as the working class in this country are concerned. The people of to-day do not enjoy any dividends from any part of the Six Counties, or the 32; and net it is a deficit so far as our people are concerned, and in no sense any colonial benefit. I believe there is a need to bring home to the Irish people some of the real truths of this issue. But, also, it is on the basis of these truths that Her Majesty's Government have a duty to our people and, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, a duty to our British soldiers to put forward radical, constructive political proposals.
The Economist had a leader on January 15 which made the point that no solution was yet possible, for as yet neither side had suffered enough.
"The truth about Northern Ireland "
it said,
"is that the place has not suffered sufficiently yet."
That was on January 15, before the events of last Sunday. It was a terrible thing to say, but one understands what they meant. Why I keep coming back to this need for the insistent reiteration of otherwise unconsidered truths is that I believe it can help to achieve that receptive state of mind which the Economist meant was essential. And even if propaganda is taken to the point of brainwashing, then I prefer that to an agreement which relies upon the acquiescence of death.
The truths which have to be digested are of course many-sided. Mr. Faulkner said the other week that the people of Ulster were citizens of the United Kingdom in just the same way as people in my right honourable friend's constituency of Ormskirk. But, my Lords, this is not true. The people of Ormskirk are not citizens in the same way as the people of Ulster. They have in Ormskirk only one Parliament which they recognise; in Ulster there are two. The people of Ormskirk recognise only one Prime Minister; but in Ulster there is Mr. Faulkner as well as Mr. Heath. The people of Ormskirk pay taxes to support the whole range of domestic and foreign policies decided at Westminster; the people of Ulster, on the other hand, make no contribution at all to an important area of United Kingdom expenditure.
The truth is that the people of Ulster have tried to enjoy the best of two worlds.

935
Quite apart from the present crisis, it is a position which only people as patient as the English, Scots and Welsh would have tolerated for so long. And, quite apart from contemporary violence, the time is due, many will say, when the anomalies of the present Constitution should be altered or, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington said, significantly changed, or, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, put it, modified. For 50 years we have made special financial provision and afforded unique privileges to Ulster, because many English people thought, and hoped, that, little by little, we could get back to an undivided Island. But if not complete union, there is known to-day such a wide spectrum of forms of association that, with the experience gained since 1921, it seems to me inconceivable that, if we really tried, we could not find an acceptable form of association. But it is going to need this realisation that there is to-day wrong on both sides.
There is to be an Inquiry into the Derry tragedy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and others have said, we should reserve judgment. But if we are frank, no inquiry is needed to establish the fact that it was an Irish faction, a nationalist faction, which deliberately, in quite cold blood a year and a half or so ago, decided to use violence and murder to further their policy. It is the I.R.A. gunman, who will deliberately shoot down a father in the sight of his family, who has really stained the honour of a Christian country. Not since Belsen has there been such a contempt for human values as that shown by the I.R.A. gunman. I go this far with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan: probably the most appalling truth of this whole affair is that those who support, excuse or perpetrate these crimes against humanity have protested in other spheres, on religious grounds, that even an unborn fœtus was sacred.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? Does he realise that abortion is forbidden in Northern Ireland?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I cannot see that that is at all relevant to my argument. The I.R.A. have vowed vengeance for the Derry deaths. If they step up their murders, then the Army, inevitably, will be shooting more, not less. Political
936
initiatives therefore are really an urgent necessity. This is what so many of my noble friends have stressed, and this is what I want to stress, too. It is proposed and convincingly argued by my right honourable friend Mr. Wilson that the responsibility for defence and security should now be brought clearly to Whitehall; and, with my noble friend Lord Shackleton, that proposal I support. But it would be a blunder of the most frightening potential unless the move was accompanied by a fresh political initiative. If Whitehall accepted clear responsibility for this delusion that the Army are getting on top of the gunmen, and that all they want is more time to complete the operation, and if that time were taken without any complementary political offer, then we should be further still from any chance of genuine peace.
My Lords, we may well force the I.R.A. to change its tactics. It may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. said, that we are disrupting the command structure, making more arrests and finding arm piles. But the test of success is not these things: it is whether we can win over support from the ordinary men, women and children of Ulster. It is not the man with a gun in his hand who really matters: it is the woman who rattles the dustbin lid when the troops approach, and the child who throws a brick at the soldier. To win back their neutrality —I do not say their support, but their neutrality—positive social and political proposals are an absolute prerequisite. Something imaginative (that is the word that has been used by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, by the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Annan, and others) must be offered over the heads, as it were, of the law-breakers in the streets; something that we could detail, without any inhibition, before the bar of world opinion at the United Nations. Such proposals have been spelled out in detail by Mr. Wilson, and we have had the specific proposals put forward by the noble Earl to-day. These bear the ingredients of the kind of policy that we should be putting forward in the name of our people. For all the moderation of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington; for all the hopes that he expressed; for all his impressive pride in the British Armed Forces, which I support 100 per cent., it still remains I a fact that he made not one specific

937
political proposal. It may be that this debate was not the occasion, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when he comes to reply, will be able to say that this constructive, imaginative offer will not now be long delayed.
9.45 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, over recent months the House has been notably restrained on the subject of Northern Ireland. There are many noble Lords who are responsible for that and they deserve much credit for it. The same spirit of moderation, as pointed out by several speakers, has marked the debate to-day. The tone was set at the beginning by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who brings to the discussion of Ireland so many years' knowledge of its history and people. Even though he is not nowadays confined by the shackles of any official Party line his speech was the most remarkable tour de force, and was aptly described by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, as "a true Christian statement"
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, focused our attention at the start of the debate on some of the crucial questions that lie ahead. I must confess that it was a relief to learn, after Mr. Wilson's speech in November in which he enumerated 10 principles followed by a further 15 proposals, that the noble Earl was contenting himself with no more than three main points. As I understood him, these were the transfer of responsibility for security operations to Westminster, the formation of some kind of community Government at Stormont and the longterm objective of a united Ireland. I do not know how far I shall be able to satisfy him and other noble Lords who spoke in the debate, but in the course of what I hope will be not too long a winding up I will try to refer at any rate to some of the central features which have been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. and others.
A deep consciousness of the events of last Sunday in Londonderry has been evident in the speeches of many noble Lords. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already given the House an account of how a demonstration of this sort can escalate into a tragedy. There is now to be an independent judicial Inquiry and I believe that most noble Lords will agree with what
938
the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said earlier in the debate: that it is wise to suspend judgment until conflicting statements have been investigated. In the meantime, particularly in the immediate future, it is as well to note that those who deliberately set about defying the ban on political processions have a very heavy responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, told us something of his experiences on Sunday, although very properly he said that he intended to keep his full account for the Tribunal, should he be invited to give evidence before it. In the course of his speech he argued, if I understood him rightly, that civil rights supporters in Northern Ireland should be allowed to go to meetings, which in themselves are quite legal, as he said, in such numbers and along such routes as would amount to informal processions, but without incurring the ban on marches. He put this in his usual persuasive way—so much so that I thought for a moment his short visit to Northern Ireland had infected him with a mild "go" of that congenital Irish disease which the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, described so graphically as "coat trailing".
The fact is that on every Saturday hundreds of thousands of people throughout the British Isles converge on football grounds. But they do not march there. It is the manner and the style that is all important. Nobody wants to stop meetings. That is why those who march in Northern Ireland, from whichever community they come, need to do so. They need to demonstrate, and to demonstrate in a public way, that so strong is the belief in their cause that they are prepared to defy the law. My Lords, I am afraid that we must accept that provocation is an essential element in these marches. When Mr. Faulkner extended the ban on marches last month he made clear that the decision had been taken in order to prevent people from exposing the security forces, and themselves, to unnecessary dangers, and to enable the security forces to concentrate their efforts against the terrorists.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I hope very much that the Government as well as the Citizens' Rights Association will pay serious attention to the proposals which are made, and which the Minister does not quite seem to have gathered.

939
Last night on T.V. a Minister of the Stormont Government said that a meeting of 50,000 was legal. The problem is how the 50,000 are to get there. I saw what they call marches. It was just like the whole population going to a football match. I am suggesting that if you say a meeting is legal, you have to find some method by which those who are getting there are not just regarded as marchers in contradiction of authority.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think that I have covered the point, although we are not in agreement on it. What I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is this. He has a great reputation as someone who for very many years has championed the cause of civil rights. If he feels able to use what influence he has with those people, whoever they may be, who are planning to organise a similar event— whether we call it a march, a demonstration or a meeting— in Newry this weekend; if he could persuade them to call that off, that could well be one of the greatest services that he could perform for the cause of civil rights.
My Lords, many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who, if I may say so, put his points forcefully and admirably, and also the noble Lord, Lord Soper, have spoken of their anger and contempt at the terrorist campaign of bloodshed and violence. I have done so on previous occasions, and my instincts, like those of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, were to do so again to-night. But since the time is late and there are other matters to which I want to turn, all I will say is that I endorse every word that the noble Lords said. It is, of course, not enough merely to condemn the tactics of the terrorists. Positive steps have to be taken to contain them and then to suppress them. This is what has led to the involvement of the Army in what must undoubtedly be one of the most distasteful military assignments of the last quarter of a century.
Tributes have been paid to the fortitude and courage of the Armed Forces by many speakers from both sides of the House to-day, as on previous occasions. I know that they are deeply appreciated, especially perhaps when they come from those who have some reservations about the task the Army has been called on
940
to carry out. It is because condemnation of violence is not enough that an active campaign is needed to combat it. This is the context in which internment must be seen; not just as a policy to be judged in isolation, repugnant as it is from the standpoint of individual liberty, but as a necessary measure to restrain those who are likely to cause further suffering and misery.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is always listened to in this House with great respect, spoke on these lines earlier in the debate. When one hears of respectable citizens fearful of being lifted, one cannot help reflecting at the same time on the mounting stocks of arms and explosives, of bombs and of acid, that have been located by the security forces. These have no place, none whatever, in the cause of true civil rights and the righting of grievances. And yet these arms were brought into Northern Ireland. They were hidden. In some instances they were used, with the terrible consequences that are only too familiar. Who can argue that these arms should not be secured, and that the men who by their membership of certain organisations have declared themselves ready to use them should not be temporarily removed from the scene?
The point that I want to make in this part of my speech is that it is the tactics adopted by the I.R.A., the deliberate calculated assault on life and property, that give the situation in Northern Ireland its murderous dimension. This is what is right outside the scope of what can be regarded as legitimate forms of political action. We must not confuse the aims of the I.R.A. with a political solution. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his speech, we are dealing here with people whose aim is to overthrow civilisation itself. Consequently, if we pause to think it through, military methods, which are all that are available to counter insurgency, have a political aim, and that aim is to arrive at a situation in which the political future of Northern Ireland can be discussed without violence, intimidation and terror distorting all the other elements. Let us therefore not be misled into distinguishing too readily between military solutions and political solutions, because the two are very closely linked.
LORD BESWICK: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, do we understand from what he says that the Government believe that there is no chance of discussing political constitutions and solutions until violence has ended?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Not at all. If I gave that impression, I should like to clear it up. It has been made clear by my right honourable friend from last year onwards that he is ready to hold discussions with anyone who is willing to come and discuss proposals with him. Indeed, as the noble Lord will know, he has already held a number of discussions with certain representatives from Northern Ireland.
Turning now to some of the proposals for political changes that have been made in the course of the debate, I recall that Mr. Wilson said not long ago— in November, I believe— that he had identified over 30 different approaches towards what he called a political solution. To-day's debate in this House and yesterday's debate in another place have added to that number. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, advocated the retention of Stormont, but the introduction of some form of community Government involving a guaranteed representation for the minority. What we have to keep in mind here is that Governments made up of people of different political views have normally come into existence when the major political Parties consent to work together in the pursuit of a common objective. They agree to put their political differences on one side for a time because there is an overriding cause which they accept as of paramount importance— often the integrity of the State itself.
Whatever the merits or demerits of proposals of this kind, it can hardly be denied that this is not the case in Northern Ireland to-day, where some are concerned to preserve the position of the Province as an integral part of the United Kingdom, while others are concerned to achieve a united Ireland. This is not, however, to rule out what the noble Lord has said, if agreement can be reached. Mr. Faulkner has indeed already shown himself ready to make changes in the composition of his own Government, and in the composition of the Parliament at Stormont. On two occasions during the lifetime of his present Administration he
942
has introduced outsiders into his Cabinet: first Mr. David Blakeley, a member of the Northern Ireland Labour Party, as Minister of Community Relations, followed by Dr. Newe, a prominent Roman Catholic from Belfast, as Minister of State in the Prime Minister's own Office. Before the S.D.L.P. and the Nationalist M.Ps. withdrew from Stormont last summer, Mr. Faulkner had outlined a system of new functional committees, half of which would be chaired by Opposition M.Ps.
Then in October came the Green Paper to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred in her speech, and which contained further ideas about a possible increase in the size of the elected House of Commons at Stormont and the addition to the Senate of a number of people with wide knowledge and experience from outside the direct political sphere. I will not say any more about these proposals to-night, other than to remark that it is hardly fair to charge Mr. Faulkner and his colleagues with lack of awareness of the need to find some method of enabling the minority take a fuller part in the way that Northern Ireland is governed. The evidence is there, but the response to these proposals has been most disappointing. They have not been discussed, and the reason why they have not been discussed is that the Opposition Members of Parliament have walked out of Stormont.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I make one point plain to the noble Lord, in case he is under a misapprehension? Most of us here are not concerned with criticising Mr. Faulkner— he has enough on his plate without our criticism— most of the criticism is aimed at the noble Lord and his colleagues. Is he saying that until the minority in Northern Ireland join in talks none of these suggestions can be discussed at all, and that that gives him an excuse for saying nothing whatever to-night or at any future date?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, what I was referring to, following the line of thought developed by the noble Baroness, Lady White, was what had become of the proposals tabled by Mr. Faulkner. He tabled a proposal, for example, that there should be four functional committees, two of which should be chaired by Opposition Members of

943
Parliament. How are two Committees to be chaired by Members of Parliament who are not present? You cannot discuss the sharing of power with Parliamentary representatives if they have walked out of Parliament. We are now told that these proposals have fallen victim to the law of diminishing acceptability, but despite the repeated efforts— I hope the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will pay me the courtesy of listening to my argument; we listened to him with close attention. I have prepared a considered response to the three points of which he was kind enough to give me advance notice, and perhaps he would be kind enough to give me the opportunity to reply.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I cannot accept that or any other rebuke from the noble Lord.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it was not intended as a rebuke: it would be presumptuous of me to seek to rebuke the noble Earl. It was merely a mild request, in a restrained vein.
Despite the efforts made— and I think it is patent that there have been repeated efforts by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and others— it has not been found possible to meet the representatives of the minority, in order to try to agree upon ways in which all sections of the community can participate more fully in the life and public affairs of the Province, and in ways that would be guaranteed. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, perhaps illustrated the difference between us on this matter (and I respect the careful and frank way in which he has addressed himself to this debate) by implying that he would be willing to consider imposing a solution. Indeed, legislation at Westminster would I think be implicit in the type of guaranteed representation he has in mind when he speaks of community Government. But the reason why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is anxious to proceed so far as possible by this route of talks and discussion is that it is only in this way that agreement can be reached; and agreement is necessary as an objective, since it is only agreed solutions that will endure. It would be irresponsible to contemplate a patchwork job that would
944
result only in perpetuating the cycle of violence and tragedy which we have seen in Ireland for so long.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, who is putting a very well argued case on this matter? Is it not seriously for consideration that if you cannot get agreement it may be worthwhile the Government's introducing, whether in Stormont or here, legislation along the lines of their proposals? It would be fair to argue, "If you will not talk to us, none the less this is the way we should go". There will be another Election in two or three years' time. Something has to be done. If I may make a further point: the noble Lord will remember the bitterness of the discussions— and I know that it is a different area— on the reform of the L.C.C. When the time came, despite the blood and thunder uttered from these Benches, all political Parties co-operated.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there have been some discussions with political Party representatives, trade unions and others, from Northern Ireland. There have also been, as the noble Lord will know, negotiations over a period of some weeks now between the leaders of the Parties at Westminster to see whether, and on what terms, talks could be agreed upon. That is certainly our aim. The Home Secretary has made it quite clear, and said so in public, that nothing is ruled out; these talks would be open-ended. I believe that would cover the point the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has in mind.
Some noble Lords in the debate— the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was the first to do so— referred to the possibility of transferring responsibility for security to Westminster, either immediately to deal with the grave security situation with which we are faced, or as part of the long-term solution to the Northern Ireland problem. The Government. for their part, have taken the view that this may be one of the matters which could be examined in any talks that are held. It would not be right this evening to express a view one way or the other on what might then be decided. The proposal would raise very difficult issues. As the Home Secretary said in another place yesterday. transfer of all responsibility for security, quite apart from the

945
serious practical problems that would be involved, might be regarded by the Protestant community of Northern Ireland as tantamount to direct rule. This is one of the factors that would have to be kept in mind.
My noble friend Lord Carrington, when he spoke at the start of the debate, discussed at some length the question of possible unification; and he did so in the setting of those principles on which future changes should depend. I do not think that there is any necessity to repeat the argument again. Several noble Lords, not as many as I had expected, but the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was one, and the noble Earl. Lord Longford, another, spoke about the need for economic aid. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, also discussed financial subventions from this country to Northern Ireland, but in a somewhat different context. We must accept that ordinary life has to go on in Northern Ireland; respectable people have to earn a living, employment has to be preserved. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke of the need to be ready to provide additional economic aid as soon as more settled conditions emerged. We have not been as patient as him; we have not waited for settled conditions to emerge. Additional aid has already been pumped into Northern Ireland on a large scale.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord again, but he has not quoted me correctly.
LORD SHACKLETON: Nor me.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I apologise. Let me re-phrase my claim: I understood in the speeches of the two noble Lords that they were concerned that there should be economic aid on a generous scale —
LORD SHACKLETON: That is what I said.
LORD WINDLESHAM: —provided by the Government to Northern Ireland.
I should like to describe, very briefly and shortly, what measures have been taken. I do so because I have noticed that there is a tendency to talk in gener-
946
alities without sometimes taking the trouble to look at what is actually being done. One of the Government's first acts after the Election in 1970, was to approve an extensive development programme involving expenditure of an additional £75 million over five years. In November, 1971, followed an additional £1 million for industrial training; then another £2 million for accelerating investment grants. Harland &s Wolff, Ulster's largest employer of labour, with 10,000 workers, has received substantial support from public funds. Next came the review by Sir Alec Cairncross and his colleagues, whose report was published last December. Their recommendation to establish a finance corporation with resources of £50 million to offer loans or guarantees to companies with good prospects but which faced contraction or closure because of disturbances has already been accepted, and the United Kingdom Government have agreed to make available the necessary financial support. This will be coupled with an adlitional £18½ million public expenditure which should create 3,000 jobs.
In all, it has been calculated that these measures represent an additional £100 made available per head of population. That is of course over and above the normal subsidy from the United Kingdom taxpayer, which is well in excess of £100 million. Just before leaving this point I might follow what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said and recognise the admirable efforts made by the trade unions in Northern Ireland to keep politics out of industry. The employers also are playing a part. Indeed, I understand that the Confederation of British Industry are sending a purchasing mission to Northern Ireland this week.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about the police. It must have been a sad speech for him to make as the architect of the reorganised police force in Northern Ireland. He said in his speech, I think for the first time, that he accepted the need in present circumstances for the police to be armed. He asked me a number of questions about the personal protection of the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of their families. I can tell him that the R.U.C. are issued with suitable arms as necessary. Flack jackets are also issued. When the R.U.C.

947
go on hazardous duties they are accompanied by Army vehicles wherever possible. The police authority have considered whether to concentrate police families in guarded hotels, but have not pursued the matter because of practical difficulties. The police have themselves, however, voluntarily arranged patrols around the clock for the families who may be regarded as being at risk. The noble Lord also asked about recruitment. I understand that recruitment has not been seriously affected. As regards his question on morale, the R.U.C. are reacting with remarkable resilience in what are clearly very difficult circumstances.
My Lords, at the conclusion of this long debate I would offer your Lordships this thought: that it is facile to say that after last Sunday everything is different. It is not. What has happened underlines more vividly the need for analysis of the real nature of the crisis in Northern Ireland and for identifying and weighing up as calmly as possible all the main elements. This is not an emergency debate on Londonderry; it is an opportunity for deep consideration of the anguish which divides the people of Northern Ireland. Her Majesty's Government have a responsibility towards all the people of Northern Ireland, whatever their political and religious beliefs, and it is a responsibility that we intend to continue to discharge to the best of our ability. In this task we are helped by the concern and goodwill of all those who have given time and thought to the study of this grave situation; and it is in that spirit that I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating the debate to-day.
10.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, we have just listened to a delightful speech, as always, from the Minister. I should like to thank the many noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Many of them have stayed, and if I do not mention all of them I know they will forgive me, because we have had two first-class winding-up speeches and noble Lords will not want me to cover all the ground again. It might be thought that as the Labour Party point of view has been put so strongly and authoritatively by my noble friends Lord Shackleton and Lord Beswick very few words from me
948
may be necessary. I hope that will prove to be true, but I must make one or two comments.
The noble Lord, the Minister, in his perceptive way, was kind enough to indicate that I had laid three main questions before him. I cannot pretend that he answered any of them, but at any rate he dealt with them and I shall say something about his method of doing so. There were many other important points raised to which I feel I should refer, if briefly, because I do not think they should be lost sight of, but I shall not try to follow them up. There was the question of a possible condominium. I am afraid that I missed the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, but I think that is something which should be carefully considered.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, were very much concerned with a possible revision of the frontier, which is something that has concerned me for a number of reasons, some based on my historical studies for many years. The father of the noble Baroness was of course a great expert on that problem in the 1920s. That is something which has to be looked at. I could not help noticing— this surprised me, and I am not sure whether it leads anywhere— that Mr. Craig, one of the leading Unionists in Northern Ireland although he is not now a Minister, suggested that possibly Derry or a large part of it might secede to the South. That was suggested by a leading Unionist yesterday. I am not putting it forward but it was rather noticeable that that suggestion came from that source.
There was also the suggestion floated by my noble friend Lord Shackleton and the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and others who were interested of some kind of Minister for Northern Ireland. I shall not pursue that either, but one must at least refer to it at this late stage. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, was not by any means alone in saying that the time had come when the troops must come out. There is no doubt, without resorting to any kind of Gallup poll that there is a strong body of opinion in favour of that course. I do not want to be misunderstood; I am not standing here supporting that idea, but in referring to what was said in the course of the debate one

949
cannot help feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, was not alone in his support for it.
Before sitting down, may I refer to the three particular points which I raised. There was the question of the transfer of security in that case and in the case of the community Government. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to say that the Government here (which matters for these purposes) could not be expected— I want to get this right— to make any progress with them, until they had been able to involve the minority in Northern Ireland in talks. I want to be quite sure that that is so. I think that would be a real counsel of despair. So long as internment lasts and so long as it continues as it is now, the noble Lord can take it from me or from Lord Brockway, or anyone who wishes to offer an opinion, that the representatives of the minority will not come into talks. Is the noble Lord saying, "All right; so much the worse for them. If there are no talks there can be no political progress"? If in April or May the whole situation is much worse, surely the noble Lord will not cone down to the House then in order to tell us that it was all the fault of the minority in Northern Ireland; that they would not engage in talks so one could not expect this poor old Government to produce an initiative of their own. It is quite contrary to an ordinary political or constitutional expectation. A Government do not ordinarily come forward and say, "We are sorry, we have not got a policy. We could not get the other people to talk to us so you could not expect us to have one ".
That is 'what the noble Lord has implied, and if it were really so, although I cannot believe that it is quite so, it would be a shocking answer. The noble Lord must understand that it is a totally insufficient answer to serious suggestions for him to suggest that it is all the fault of Mr. Hume or Mr. Fitt or Mr. Somebody who "will not come and talk to us" and then to add, "So you cannot expect us to do anything about it. We just fold
950
our hands and sleep on it until we go over the precipice". I want to say seriously to the noble Lord that I was very much depressed by that answer and he must not leave the House with the idea that he has satisfied anybody who was not already his convinced supporter.
On the question of a united Ireland, the noble Lord said that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had gone as far as anyone might expect him to go to-day. In a sense, that is a more verbal matter. It was pressed very strongly, however, by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and also the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, feels keenly about it, and other speakers have come forward and called for a statement in favour of a united Ireland. Therefore it is a case where a verbal statement becomes a fact and the absence of a verbal statement becomes a negative fact, and a very damaging one too. To be quite honest, I am not so critical about the failure of the Government to say something in that respect. In a sense, I think it was natural that they should consider this debate and then consider what they could say about a united Ireland. I hope they will say something, because otherwise I cannot imagine any vestige of bi-partisanship remaining. The Labour Party has come out in favour of a united Ireland, and if the Conservative Party cannot say anything in favour of it at all then there is a complete breakdown of anything that could possibly be called bi-partisanship. However, I am not so critical there, because I think it is reasonable to see what the Government will say. But I am passionately critical of this Government when they say that they are not going to produce any political initiative until the opposition are ready to engage in talks. I cannot believe that is their real meaning. I hope profoundly that it is not so. My Lords, I have said enough for this evening. I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave,withdrawn.

  COAL STRIKE AND OFFICE TEMPERATURES
  COAL STRIKE AND OFFICE TEMPERATURES
  RESEARCH EXPENDITURE
  RESEARCH EXPENDITURE