Sitting of 29 March 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
RYDE CORPORATION BILL
Read the Third time and passed.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION
Mr. Gordon Campbellpresented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Edinburgh Corporation; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Jury Trials (Acquittals)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, with a view to legislation, he will set up an inquiry into the numbers of acquittals in jury trials.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): My right hon. Friend has no plans for a formal inquiry, but the significance of the statistics for acquittals in contested trials is one of the many subjects in the field of criminal law which are being considered for future research.
    Mr. McCrindle: I am pleased to note the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend. He in turn will have noted the remarks of Sir Robert Mark, who has

    1502
    revealed that in London juries have acquitted 41 per cent. of all defendants in recent months and has called for impartial and extensive research into the jury system. To disprove the suggestion—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question, preferably a brief one.
    Mr. McCrindle: To disprove the suggestion that large numbers of guilty men are getting away with it, does not my hon. and learned Friend feel that urgent research is required?
    Mr. Carlisle: The 41 per cent. is the figure of acquittals in contested cases. If one includes all the cases of indictable offences that go for trial, the overall figure of acquittals is 7·5 per cent.
    Mr. Stonehouse: If an inquiry is held, in the light of recent publicity will consideration be given to the importance of ensuring that in sex trials there are women members of the jury?
    Mr. Carlisle: Under the Criminal Justice Act 1972, as from March next year juries will be taken from the electoral roll. That will rectify the present imbalance between men and women on juries.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May it not be that the 41 per cent. quoted by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) were innocent of the crime with which they were charged? Should there not be research into the way in which juries reach their decision, in view of the analysis by the Oxford Group and the interesting article by Dudley Stamp in Modern Law Review?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that 41 per cent. is a high figure, whether it refers to innocent people who have been wrongly charged or to people who have been wrongly acquitted. I agree that research into the jury system is a matter that might be considered, although one has to be careful not to attempt to interfere with the privacy of the jury room.

    Toilet Preparations (Hazardous Substances)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now concluded his review of the toiletry

    1503
    industry with regard to hexachlorophane; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): The use of hexachlorophane in non-medicinal toilet preparations and cosmetics is under consideration in the European Economic Community. Meanwhile, the associations representing manufacturers in this country have agreed to comply with the recommendation of the Department of Health and Social Security's Sub-Committee on Toxicity that hexachlorophane should not be used at all in baby products and should be subject to an upper limit of 01 per cent. in other cases.
    Mr. Pavitt: I welcome this belated response after 13 months, but will the hon. Gentleman examine the whole range of chemicals added to articles in household use that come under the jurisdiction of his Department to make sure that they are covered by a foolproof system similar to that which is established in the Department of Health and Social Security?
    Mr. Lane: I shall certainly look again at this. There is a later Question on the Order Paper which bears on it. I can reassure parents straight away on the immediate point by saying that our medical advice is that there is no significant risk to health from products containing hexachlorophane at present on sale in this country.
    Mrs. Joyce Butler: I welcome the Minister's reply, but is the Poisons Committee considering the chemicals mentioned in Question No. 22? Inevitably, with the restriction on the use of hexachlorophane there will be a search for alternatives, some of which may be equally dangerous.
    Mr. Lane: In case we do not reach Question 22, I assure the hon. Lady that we shall be ready to take further action if we think, on medical advice, that these alternatives present a risk to health.

    Police Recruitment
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to increase the recruitment of coloured policemen, policewomen and special constables into the Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the recruitment of coloured policemen into the Metropolitan Police and other forces.
    Mr. Carlisle: With my right hon. Friend's active encouragement, chief officers of police, who are responsible for recruitment to their forces, adopt the publicity and other measures best suited to their areas. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and his recruitment staff pay special attention to the need to encourage members of coloured communities to join the Metropolitan Police as regular or special constables. He has made it known through newspapers which circulate among coloured communities that appropriately qualified members of these communities would be welcomed into the force and he has sought to convey the same message through the work of his community liaison officers, who are in day-to-day touch with community leaders.
    Mr. Fraser: I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will he consider induction courses for traffic wardens to go into the police force after entrance examinations and further approaches to careers officers and youth employment bureaux with a view to getting coloured cadets as well as coloured policemen?
    Mr. Carlisle: Certainly we shall do what we can, through career opportunities and youth employment officers, to encourage people of all colours to join the police cadet force. I shall have to consider the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman about traffic wardens.
    Mr. Goodhart: As it is plain that the recruitment of more coloured policemen would be the best possible way of improving relations between coloured communities and the police, will my hon. and learned Friend take up with community liaison officers the idea of approaching headmasters and careers masters to draw the attention of school leavers to the opportunities available?
    Mr. Carlisle: I shall certainly do so. There has been an increase, though only a small one, in the number of coloured people in police forces. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Commissioner's staff attends career conferences and has visited schools to provide information about

    1505
    careers in the Metropolitan Police—and it will continue to do so.

    Discharged Prisoners (Aid)
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as requested by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the Howard League, he will increase the discharge amount given to a discharged prisoner.
    Mr. Carlisle: Account will be taken of these suggestions when the existing arrangements are reviewed later this year.
    Mr. Lamont: Could not this suggestion be adopted with little cost and to great advantage, since the allowance has not been adjusted since 1964? Is it not the case that very few prisoners have accommodation arranged for them in advance of leaving prison, and that those who do not often get caught in a vicious circle, for they cannot get social security benefit without giving an accommodation address and they cannot get an accommodation address because they cannot afford the down payment of rent? Should not official policy facilitate adjustment to the outside world, rather than increase the pressures which can lead only to the road back to jail?
    Mr. Carlisle: I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. We should do all we can to ease back into society those who are at the end of their prison sentences. On the question of rent, as well as the discharge grant there is power to make an advance payment of rent of up to £4 to the person who provides accommodation for a homeless ex-prisoner. These matters will be reviewed later this year.
    Mr. Thomas Cox: In view of the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) is it not clear that the important question concerns the amount of money which must be paid for furnished accommodation? I am pleased that the Minister is to consider this matter, but will he bear in mind that £4 will not find accommodation in London or any other part of the country?
    Mr. Carlisle: The £4 is an advance payment to the landlady. The purpose of the discharge grant, as such, is merely to tide a person over following his

    1506
    immediate release from prison, but, as I said, the existing arrangements are to be reviewed later this year.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Some of these discharged prisoners live in "halfway houses", of which there is one in my constituency. Will my hon. and learned Friend say what arrangements are being made to ensure that those who live in these houses, if they are in remote areas, have the opportunity of seeking jobs, are given the opportunity to know where vacancies exist, and are financially able to seek the work that they undoubtedly need?
    Mr. Carlisle: I think I am right in saying that the hostel to which my hon. Friend refers also provides sheltered workshops. Certainly those who go to a normal discharge hostel have everything done for them that can be done to help them to obtain employment and accommodation.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am sure that the Minister recognises that while the number of hostel places has increased slightly the number of places in Rowton Houses and their equivalent has dropped dramatically in the last couple of years. Will he therefore consider not only increasing the release grant but also the possibility of informing a social security office in the area to which the prisoner intends to go, so that that office can make the man advances until he finds accommodation? Will he also consider the question of insurance stamps, which stand in the way of many men getting employment, so that, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) said, they are driven back all too quickly to crime?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member has asked a fair number of questions. As for probation after-care hostels, I think I am right in saying that the voluntary bodies are providing more places—now at the rate of 200 places a year. The discharge grant does not directly affect this, but the Home Office has increased the weekly payment made towards places in these hostels. I shall consider the other matter raised by the hon. Lady but I must repeat that the discharge grant is merely a lump sum payment to tide a person over until he can apply in the normal way for whatever benefits he may be entitled to.

    Licensing Law (Erroll Report)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has now received about the Erroll Committee; and what replies he has given.
    Mr. Lane: About 335. The general line of reply has been that the views expressed will be considered before decisions are taken on the committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Price: As action on the Erroll Committee Report is likely to be long-delayed will the Minister consider one specific point? Is he aware that some brewers are conducting a most vicious campaign against tenants of public houses? Hundreds of tenants are being kicked out and replaced by managers. Will the Government consider the possibility of introducing some form of protection for people whose only crime is that they are at the mercy of the brewers whose sole motive is financial greed?
    Mr. Lane: These are lurid charges, and they are not the responsibility of the Home Office. I shall be glad to examine any evidence the hon. Member likes to give me.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Since the House of Lords gave the proposal such a roasting the other day, shall we be given an opportunity to discuss the matter before a decision is taken? Is this the time to ease the licensing requirements for liquor, when all the indications are that the ill effects of alcoholism are increasing?
    Mr. Lane: Obviously the question of a debate is one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We would welcome the views of hon. and right hon. Members on this important matter. We have had an airing of views in the other place, and even if this House does not debate the matter in the near future I hope that hon. Members will send us their views. The point raised by the hon. Member is one of the main criticisms put to us so far in representations from members of the public.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the Erroll Committee proposals go further than even the brewers wanted, for obvious political reasons?

    1508
    How many of the letters he has received propose the lowering of the age at which drinking becomes legal from 18 to 17? Many hon. Members would oppose that proposal.
    Mr. Lane: That is one of the most common points of criticism contained in the letters. Most of the comments we have received have been critical of one aspect or another of the Erroll Committee recommendations, and the one referred to by the hon. Member has caused a lot of anxiety among many people.

    Firearms
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to make a policy announcement with regard to the import and sale of replica firearms.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): I hope to include provisional proposals on this matter in the consultative document on firearms control which I expect to publish in the near future; but the House should not underestimate the difficulties involved.
    Mr. Redmond: Has my hon. Friend seen these replica firearms, which are very vicious and are certainly not toys? Does he realise what offence has been given by the display of these ridiculous things in the Arndale shopping centre in Bolton, and is he aware of the number of letters that I have received on the subject?
    Will he comment on the fact that the sale of these objects is illegal in Japan, where they are made, but that they can be sold freely here? Has he any idea who would buy one of these expensive things unless he had some dark and dirty deed in mind?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, I have seen them and I hope shortly to include some proposals on the matter in my consultative document. I emphasise, however, that the matter is not as simple as it might seem at first sight. For example, it would be no good confining proposals literally to replicas.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It seems that fairly large quantities of these replica weapons are being imported now. Does the Home Secretary recall having a letter from a

    1509
    docker in my constituency expressing great horror at what he was unloading from the ships and sending forward?
    Mr. Carr: Yes. This is a serious matter and I intend to treat it seriously. Any change in our present position would require legislation, and would have to be dealt with in legislation on firearms control generally. That is why we need a consultative document.
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average sentence imposed for summary convictions under Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 for the offence of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place.
    Mr. Carlisle: In the years 1969 to 1971, 11 of those found guilty by magistrates' courts in England and Wales of offences under Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 were sentenced to imprisonment for terms ranging from two to six months, and 2,102 were fined. The average fine was £7·91.
    Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary get in touch with the Lord Chancellor in another place as a result of comments made in this House a month ago on the question of sentencing? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it appears to a number of hon. Members that some of the judiciary are totally unaware of the stringent maximum level of penalties which Parliament laid down years ago? What did the Lord Chancellor say?
    Mr. Carlisle: I assure my hon. Friend that the views expressed by hon. Members were brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as he promised to do, but I must reiterate that it is Parliament's duty to lay down penalties and it is the duty of the courts to determine the appropriate penalties, within those limits, in different cases. Offences of carrying firearms in public places, which include the carrying of air pistols, vary considerably in gravity.
    Mr. Fidler: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that in order to deal with the problems to which he has referred it would be as well to increase the

    1510
    penalties to a minimum of five years for carrying a firearm, 10 years for using it, and the death penalty for causing death by using it?
    Mr. Carlisle: All the matters which my hon. Friend has raised are slightly outside Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968, but I assure my hon. Friend that I have heard what he has said.
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider a short amnesty for those illegally possessing firearms in England, Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce an amnesty for illegally held firearms.
    Mr. R. Carr: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will seek the views of chief officers of police on whether it would be desirable to arrange a general firearms amnesty as soon as practicable or whether it would be preferable to consider the possibility of an amnesty in connection with any legislation that may follow the provisional proposals which will be published in the near future.
    Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that there is a case for tougher penalties for those illegally possessing firearms but that more stringent conditions should apply for the annual re-licensing of firearms? Given that the Government are considering making alterations to the law, is there not a case for, for example, a three- to four-weeks' amnesty as a last chance for people to hand in that which they illegally possess?
    Mr. Carr: I certainly think that there is a case for an amnesty. The question on which I am seeking advice is its timing —namely, whether it is better to have an amnesty now or as soon as we possibly can, or whether we should tie it up with the new law, if that is the conclusion to which my consultative proposals lead.
    Mr. Cox: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Surely the reply he gave to me in answer to a Question on Tuesday indicates the urgency of this matter. In the last three years there

    1511
    have been nearly 1,000 extra prosecutions of people holding illegal firearms. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House and the general public do not want our police armed. Surely we have a duty to stop the use and the circulation of illegal arms. That is what the urgency is about.
    Mr. Carr: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the urgency of the matter. However, we cannot have amnesties every year, or they will lose their effect. The only matter which I am considering is the question of the best time for an amnesty. I am properly considering that —with the Secretary of State for Scotland —by consulting chief constables.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In considering an amnesty will my right hon. Friend also consider the possibility of allowing, in conjunction with that amnesty, the sale of currently illegal arms to authorised arms dealers? Does he agree that such a policy might result in more currently illegal arms being withdrawn from circulation than would be the case with a simple amnesty?
    Mr. Carr: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am a relative new-comer to these matters, and that suggestion is new to me. I shall think about it.
    Mr. Ewing: May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to remember, in the event of an amnesty, that it is very important for action in Scotland to take place simultaneously with action in England and Wales? It is important that action in Scotland should not be delayed. Will the Secretary of State impress that point upon the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Carr: That is one of the reasons— quite apart from the formal constitutional reason—why, in my answer, I coupled with mine the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Clearly such action must coincide.
    Mr. Edward Taylorasked the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department whether he has completed his review of the law relating to the use of firearms.
    Mr. R. Carr: My review of firearms law is nearly completed and I expect shortly to publish a consultative document setting out my provisional proposals for changes.
    Mr. Taylor: Have the Home Secretary's inquiries revealed why no statistics are available on the number of crimes involving the use of firearms for any year before 1967? Secondly, have they identified any reason why the number of crimes involving the use of firearms has increased by more than 150 per cent. in five years?
    Mr. Carr: I should require notice of those two questions. I do not see much merit in trying to ascertain why figures were not collected for a period which ended six years ago. I have already made it clear in the House and in public speeches outside that in the Home Office I am undertaking new inquiries to try to discover something more about the basic causes of violence.
    Mr. Farr: When his Green Paper is introduced will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the illegal pool of firearms will not be eliminated by harassing the million or more legitimate holders of firearms licences?
    Mr. Carr: It will certainly be no part of my plan unnecessarily to harass anyone. When I put forward my proposals they will have very much in mind the need to control all those sorts of weapons that may be, and unfortunately are, used from time to time.

    Explosives (Storage Security)
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the security precautions for explosives in explosive stores, magazines and other registered premises; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. Carr: A review of the law relating to the security of explosives is in progress, and existing controls have already been tightened within the powers available under the Explosives Act 1875.
    Mr. Fowler: I am glad to hear what my right hon. Friend has said. Is he aware that over the past three years there have been 99 attempted thefts of explosives from magazines and stores, and that no fewer than 92 of those have been successful? This is not a very impressive security record. In view of the obvious current danger, is not there a need for urgent attention to be given to this matter?
    Mr. Carr: Before the latest worrying events in this country the Home Office had started tightening up under the existing law to which I referred. I have now thought it right to examine the existing law. I am not sure whether I took in my hon. Friend's statistics accurately. My figures indicated that thefts from licensed stores dropped from 28 in 1969 to 10 in 1972.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that anyone can go into a local authority office, inspect and obtain a list of all registered premises holding explosives, and then go with a screwdriver and help himself to as much gelignite as he wants?
    Mr. Carr: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he may be right when he says that lists are available, but I am glad to say that I am sure that he is not right on the second part.

    Remand Home Absconders
    Dr. Stuttafordasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences have been committed by young people who have absconded while in remand homes in Norfolk in the last six months; and how this figure compares with the same period last year.
    Mr. Carlisle: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that 10 young people committed one or more offences while absent without leave from the remand home in Norfolk during the six months ended 28th February 1973; the corresponding figure for the six months ended 29th February 1972 is one.
    Dr. Stuttaford: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is an alarming increase in the course of one year and that it would be very, very much greater if the general public pressed charges? Does not he further agree that although the people of Norfolk are kindly disposed towards these unfortunate people they feel that the time has come, in the interests of the police and local ratepayers, to insist that when people are remanded in custody they should be kept there?
    Mr. Carlisle: A tenfold increase, even if it is from a base figure of only one, is nevertheless a major increase. I share my hon. Friend's view that those who

    1514
    are committed on remand have been so committed because it is felt that they should not have bail, and that it is desirable that they should be kept there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is considering the adequacy of secure accommodation for people remanded in this way.

    Police (Firearms)
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the arming of the police.
    Mr. R. Carr: The Home Office has received 55 letters on this subject in the last two years. Of these, 21 supported present practice, 12 favoured general arming of the police, and 12 were against the police being armed, or expressed concern at increasing police use of firearms. The remaining 10 were concerned with points of detail.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that according to official information guns were issued to qualified police marksmen last year at an average rate of six times a day? Can he confirm that two new guns which can penetrate light screening and still hit and kill will be available in London police stations and will be carried by policemen on protective duties within six months or a year, even though the Home Office circular makes it clear that police forces have up to 10 years to make these changes?
    Mr. Carr: I cannot make a statement at the moment about types of guns, beyond saying that if the police are to be armed they should have proper weapons which fire with the greatest accuracy, and so forth. It is true that there has been this increase in the number of occasions on which police have been issued with arms. It is also true that in the past three calendar years police have used guns on only three occasions. I assure the House —because this is important—that I have asked the Inspectorate to pay special attention to the question of the issue of guns in its annual inspection of each police force.
    Sir Gilbert Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the absence of the sanction of capital punishment it must inevitably follow, as night follows day,

    1515
    that the police will end up by being armed?
    Mr. Carr: That may be a matter tor debate but it does not arise on this Question. I do not think that I can accept my hon. Friend's premise.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the basis upon which the police are issued with arms is the same as it has traditionally always been and, secondly, that the issue of arms is to individuals and not for each incident? Will he point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) that in 1971 160 police officers were killed in the United States, where the police are armed, compared with two in this country—a United States figure 80 times as great as the United Kingdom one?
    Mr. Carr: I confirm that there has been no change of any kind in the policy or the procedure relating to the issue of arms. They are issued only to individual officers for particular purposes, and there has been no change or relaxation of any kind. But, as I have said, in view of the increase— which is due to the increased number of occasions which justify it—I felt it advisable to ask the Inspectorate to pay special attention to this matter in its annual inspections.

    Pentonville Prison (Deportation Wing)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the conditions in the deportation wing of Her Majesty's Prison, Pentonville.
    Mr. Carlisle: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member on 22nd March.— [Vol. 853, c. 159.]
    Mr. Davis: Is not the Home Office behaving in a thoroughly complacent manner about the conditions which people who face no criminal charges and who therefore have no convictions are obliged to endure in Pentonville Prison? Did not the Minister of State in another place say that conditions at Pentonville are far from satisfactory? Should not the Home Office be determined to find other accom-

    1516
    modation for these people, bearing in mind that they are innocent?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's Question. Those who are sent to Pentonville in the first place have either been ordered to be deported or are awaiting a decision on their deportation following a conviction by the courts for a criminal offence in this country. It is true that at Pentonville, because of pressure, there are those who have either been caught illegally attempting to enter this country by various methods or, prima facie, appear to be evading the control on entry. The latter class have to be detained for a few days while inquiries are made. The other accommodation being full, it is regrettably a fact that those who are among the last category have also to be put in Pentonville.
    Mr. John Fraser: Persons who are detained under Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 are being detained under a removal section. Can the Minister of State give any recent peacetime example whereby, under retroactive legislation, a person who has previously been immune from prosecution has been arrested and deprived of his liberty, ordered to be deported, deprived of any judicial review, and sent out of the country by executive action? If he can think of no precedent, in any event will he consider granting an amnesty to those people who were immune from prosecution before 1st January of this year?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman's question does not relate in any way to the original Question. However, since he has raised the matter I must tell him that the powers under the recent Immigration Act were given by Parliament after normal debate. The point to which I understand the hon. Gentleman is taking such grave objection is that, under the previous law, if anyone managed to evade being discovered for six months he was, irrespective of the fact that he had come here illegally, entitled to stay here for ever. I think that the vast majority of people in this country would think it right that if someone had chosen to come here illegally, even if he had done so six months earlier, consideration should still be given to the question whether he should be returned.
    Mr. Fraser: If the Minister wants to make a deportation order, there is a judicial review by the Immigration Tribunal. He is using his powers of removal, which offer no review or any appeal of a judicial nature.
    Mr. Carlisle: Such powers of removal were granted by this House after normal debate, and I believe that they are acceptable to the vast majority of British people. The hon. Gentleman says that these cases are not reviewed. As has been said on other occasions, each case is reviewed individually before any decision is taken.

    Road Vehicles (Dangerous Loads)
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to make mandatory the Tremcard warning system for all transport vehicles carrying potentially dangerous loads.
    Mr. Lane: Regulations now being prepared will require vehicles conveying inflammable liquids and corrosive substances by road to carry information about the nature of the load and the measures to be taken in an emergency. Carriage of the appropriate Tremcard will satisfy this requirement. Similar regulations will later be made for other classes of dangerous substances.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am grateful for his customary consideration and sympathy, and for his statement, which will be welcomed by the House? I am grateful to him for acting comparatively quickly in this matter.

    Mr. C. B. Clifford
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration he has given to the application for immigration of Mr. C. B. Clifford of Calcutta, India, following the recent representations made to him by the hon. Member for Harrow, East.
    Mr. Lane: I have considered very carefully the further information which my hon. Friend has sent me, but I am not satisfied that Mr. Clifford is qualified to come here under the immigration rules.
    Mr. Dykes: I return to the normal pattern of supplementary questions. My

    1518
    hon. Friend is always extremely fair and painstaking on these occasions—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The ordinary pattern is not a statement.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend seriously reconsider this case? All the evidence clearly indicates that this man is a patrial under the revised immigration rules. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider this case.
    Mr. Lane: I shall pass over the blush-making preliminaries. I have considered this case carefully. On the evidence, Mr. Clifford is not a patrial. If there were any further evidence, for example, that his grandfather was born in the Isle of Wight, I would consider it. Meanwhile, I am willing to discuss the case.

    Children and Young Persons Act 1968
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for bringing into effect further sections of the Children and Young Persons Act 1968.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has none at present, but he has, by order, raised to 12 the age up to which some provisions already in force will operate. The effect of the order, which comes into operation on 1st April, is to transfer from the probation service to local authorities responsibility for the supervision of children aged 10 and 11, and for the provision of home surroundings reports on children of those ages.
    Mr. Archer: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's reasons for that. However, does he agree that the presence of an implementation clause is to enable the Minister to defer the operation of a statute until the necessary arrangements have been made but not to delay it indefinitely because he disagrees with what Parliament said? Will the Minister explain how it comes about that although the non-implementation policy was announced publicly outside the House on 13th January, by the Secretary of State for Social Services, whenever I put down a Question to him about it the Question is transferred to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. Carlisle: That is because the implementation of the Act is a matter for the Home Office and not the Secretary of

    1519
    State for Social Services. The object of an implementation clause, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, is to defer implementation. If, as happened in this case, one Parliament passes legislation but it falls to another Government to decide whether to implement it, they are entitled to decide which parts of the previous Parliament's legislation they will implement and which they will not.
    Mr. Fry: Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that many magistrates feel that some sections of the Act which are already in force are not satisfactory? Before we implement any more of the Act, should we not review those parts already in operation?
    Mr. Carlisle: I think I am right in saying that it was in the summer of 1970 that, as the responsible Minister in the Home Office, I announced which parts of the Act we intended to implement and which parts we did not. That remains the case. There has been a certain amount of review of the question of orders being made which put people into the care of local authorities.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the Minister recognise that his answer is unsatisfactory? If a Government feel that Parliament has changed its mind they should repeal an Act rather than refuse to implement it. Has any pressure been brought to bear on local authorities to provide accommodation that would make the implementation of this Act possible? May I draw to the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention the fact that without this Act being in operation we have had, in a recent case, extremely severe sentences being passed on young people? Is he aware that many of us feel that if the Act had been in operation those people would have been handled in a more humane and enlightened manner?
    Mr. Carlisle: I cannot accept what the hon. Lady said at the beginning of her remarks. The fact remains that the Act was passed by the previous Government. In Opposition we made our view clear, and it fell to this Government to decide which parts of the Act to implement. We implemented those parts which we believed it right to implement, and we have made it clear that at this stage we do not propose to implement those parts with which we disagree.
    Mr. Archer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Commonwealth Immigrants (Repatriation)
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his review of the operation of Section 29 of the Immigration Act 1971, with regard to the repatriation of Commonwealth immigrants.
    Mr. R. Carr: Yes, Sir. As a result of my review I have authorised a number of relaxations in the criteria governing eligibility for assistance under this scheme and I will, with permission, circulate full details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In particular, family groups whose weekly income is up to £5 above supplementary benefit level will now come within the scheme.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that statement, which I shall study. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern over the delays in applications being vetted? Will he confirm that he has come to the conclusion that the International Social Service is the right agency to implement Section 29 and, if so, will he say whether it is to be given additional personnel so that applications may be made more quickly?
    Mr. Carr: If the organisation needs more staff I can assure my hon. Friend that it has only to come to me and talk about the question and I will consider it sympathetically. This organisation is a satisfactory one for the purpose. Some length of time is involved, because it is a welfare provision and the terms of the Act impose certain duties on whoever is operating the scheme to inquire into the circumstances of each family in relation to children, dependants, and all the rest. This is necessarily a somewhat lengthy business.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Is my right hon. Friend able to tell us how many people were repatriated in the last 12 months, and what estimate he has made of the number likely to be repatriated under the new conditions? What increase is likely?
    Mr. Carr: I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact numbers off the cuff. I think it was over 100 last year, and a further 100 under the supplementary benefit scheme. It is impossible to forecast what change these new, relaxed conditions will bring about.

    VIETNAM
    Ql. Mr. Peter Archerasked the Prime Minister whether he will invite the respective heads of Government of North and South Vietnam to visit the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have no plans to do so. President Thieu may, however, be making a short visit here in April, and if he does I expect to meet him.
    Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman seize the opportunity to press the cause of the 200,000 civilian political prisoners of all shades of political opinion, many of whom have no one to plead their cause, and many of whom are too ill to earn a living and have no homes or families to return to? Will he press not merely for their release but for an international rehabilitation operation under the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees?
    The Prime Minister: The objects of any talks we might have have not been fixed because it is not yet definite that President Thieu will come. There has been considerable conflict of view about the number of prisoners involved. It was agreed at the Paris conference that this was a matter which should be settled by the two parties in South Vietnam.

    MIDDLE EAST
    Sir Gilbert Longdenasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to make an early official visit to the Middle East.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans for such a visit.
    Sir Gilbert Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling abroad that, all other agencies having patently failed, Her Majesty's Government, either alone or in collaboration with our Community partners, might act as a catalyst to bring the two sides

    1522
    together? Is he aware that the Arabs have at last conceded the right of Israel to exist but will not sit down and negotiate until she withdraws to her pre-1967 frontiers? Could my right hon. Friend not mediate?
    The Prime Minister: The Foreign Ministers of the Community have been discussing this matter. At the moment they do not feel that the time is right to take a fresh initiative. I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the best means of trying to reach a solution would be by negotiation round a table. He is right that at the moment not all parties are prepared to do this. When meeting those concerned, I have always taken the opportunity to say that if either side is in doubt about the sincerity of the other the best way of testing the matter is to sit round a table.
    Mr. Walters: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most recent developments in Egypt show an increasing urgency for something to be done? Bearing in mind that Egypt responded favourably to the Jarring questionnaire and that the Soviet presence was thrown out of Egypt without much positive reply from the United States, could we not now put more pressure on the Americans to make them feel there is real urgency about getting a settlement in the immediate future?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that there is a great degree of urgency here. The American administration is well aware of this and on my last visit to see President Nixon in Washington in February I discussed it with him. I do not think there is any doubt about the urgency of the need for action. What is difficult is to bring the parties concerned to the point where they negotiate.

    COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on counter-inflation delivered at the annual general meeting of the Bexleyheath Conservative Association on 9th March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on the 27th of March to the hon. Member for

    1523
    Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).—[Vol. 853, c. 293.]
    Mr. Roberts: In that speech my right hon. Friend offered a partnership to the trade unions in the management of the economy. Is it not clear that the trade unions should now accept this offer without delay, since it clearly involves an examination of the workings of the Industrial Relations Act with a view to amending phase 3 and such social objectives as the improvement of the conditions of the low-paid and, finally, a return to a free voluntary system of collective bargaining?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I hope that it will be possible to resume discussions of this kind. There were very fruitful discussions between the Government and the TUC at the beginning of the year, although the TUC did not find itself able to take part in stage 2 organisation. Nevertheless, we benefited from the views which it expressed. I hope that, on a wider front, this will now be possible. As the House will have seen, some of the proposals made yesterday by Mr. Scanlon would require amendments in the Industrial Relations Act. We have always offered to consider amendments which are suggested. This has been a long-standing offer, which was made right at the beginning of the Chequers talks, but this is the first time that specific matters have been mentioned.
    Mr. Grimond: Has the Prime Minister had time to study Mr. Scanlon's suggested amendments? If so, does he think that he will be able to accept them? That seems a very important point. In view of his own speeches and in addition to these proposals from Mr. Scanlon, which seem to make for a better atmosphere, does the Prime Minister now propose to invite the trade unions to meet him to discuss amendments to the Act and, indeed, the future of the counter-inflation policy in general?
    The Prime Minister: On the first point, there has obviously not been time yet to consider the proposals of Mr. Scanlon in detail. The TUC will expect the Government to consider amendments from the TUC itself. That would be the normal way of handling such matters. There is a standing invitation to the TUC to discuss this whenever it wishes.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that while the Leader of the Opposition is perfectly entitled to be either for or against the Labour Party's backing industrial action against the Government's counter-inflation policy, it is the negation of political leadership for him to abstain in a vote on this issue at a meeting of the Labour Party's National Executive? Should not the Leader of the Opposition come clean —or shall we have to wait until the next edition of Cecil King's diaries to find out the truth?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Can you rule, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) persistently to attempt to disrupt and waste time during Prime Minister's Questions by directing questions to the Leader of the Opposition? Is it not a fact that questions should be directed only to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Speaker: In answer to that point, I think that I had better say that no question of order arises.
    Mr. Edward Short: In reply to the last question, the Prime Minister said that the unions had a standing invitation to discuss "this" at any time. Is he saying that they have a standing invitation to discuss the Industrial Relations Act and its revision at any time?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed, and to discuss any other matters which they wish to raise.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: On inflation, which is the subject of this speech, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on arm-twisting the building societies to postpone their increase until after the GLC and other elections—[Interruption.]—this affects 5 million families in this country, and I expect an answer—but is he aware that as a result of his policy some building societies have already raised their rates to 9½ and 10 per cent., and that a general rise is now regarded in the movement as inevitable? How does he reconcile this, first, with his election pledges and, second, with his standstill and prices and incomes restraint?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has constantly to be told that in his own arrangements for a standstill

    1525
    he did not seek to take control over interest rates; neither have this Government, because it is one of the features of the regulation of the economy. As for the building societies, I know that individual societies have made their own arrangements but, as the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, the Government are in consultation with the Building Societies Association and the association itself has not yet made any recommendation.
    Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has given this answer several times when I have put this question to him. Does he not realise that this has nothing to do with the regulation of the economy, with the old use of Bank Rate, which was a casual factor in regulation? Is he aware that the building society movement is saying, and saying rightly, that this is the result of the Government's introduction of new banking regulations in 1971, which meant that the Government had no control over the situation? Will he now act? Does he agree with the figure given in the House yesterday of an increase from just over £5,000 to £8,500 in the average cost of a new house in this country in the fourth quarter of last year, compared with only two years earlier? What calculation has been made of how a young family on an average income can afford a mortgage at 10 per cent. on that basis?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the position. The ability of the authorities to intervene to influence interest rates through open market operations is the same today as it has always been.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the points made by the Leader of the Opposition are real and important to the people of this country? The increases in the cost of houses and in interest rates are a direct result of inflation. Could he not call upon the Opposition and the trade unions to play a real part in trying to end inflation?
    The Prime Minister: I have constantly invited the TUC and the CBI to assist in the battle against inflation, and I think that the response there will have been more effective than would be the case if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon.
    1526
    Friends were so invited. So far as I can see, they are spending their time supporting political strikes.

    EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Goldingasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to the Telecommunication Engineering and Manufacturing Association on 7th March in respect of equipment suppliers represents Government policy.
    Mr. CharlesR. Morris asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to the Telecommunication Engineering and Manufacturing Association concerning equipment supplies on Wednesday 7th March 1973 represents Government policy.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Golding: Before he made that speech was the Minister told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the impact of VAT would be on telephone charges? Was he aware that cheap calls from coin boxes were to go, and that subscribers were to have 10 per cent. added to their bills, at a time of standstill? Further, will he tell us when a decision will be taken by the Government on TXE4?
    The Prime Minister: Value added tax has been debated in the House on many occasions, and the consequences were known on the prices which will decrease as well as on those which will increase. But my right hon. Friend was not dealing with that subject in that speech. It is not yet possible to announce the exact date for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
    Mr. Gorst: In view of the points made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains the policy of the Government to increase the amount of liberalisation and competition in our telephone service?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend dealt at some length with this matter and showed that there is now a good working relationship between the Post Office and the suppliers, and that

    1527
    the Post Office has a responsibility not only to its customers but also to those who supply the equipment, from the point of view of our long-term plans. I also believe—and I think that my hon. Friend shares this view—that the Post Office has a responsibility to supply us with materials which can be exported. It is important that home and overseas supplies should move together.
    Mr. Morris: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Minister might have taken this opportunity to alert the telephone equipment manufacturers to the impact which VAT and increased installation charges are likely to have on the demand for telephone installations? Is it the Government's policy and intention, in terms of cost, to put the telephone beyond the reach of ordinary families? Will he guarantee that telephone rental, installation and unit charges will not be increased during the Government's price restraint policy?
    The Prime Minister: That matter concerns VAT. There is no intention to put telephones outside the grasp of the ordinary person. The facts which my right hon. Friend outlined show that demand is very great indeed, and likely to remain so. The net growth of the system this year is forecast to be 9·8 per cent.—nearly 10 per cent.—which shows how substantial the demand is.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie—
    Hon. Members: Question No. 6.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.
    Mr. Mackenzie: Will the Prime Minister confirm that these increases will amount to £35 million on private subscribers, and that this £35 million increase has nothing to do with the Post Office or with its workers' wages but is simply the result of VAT? Does he also agree that it will result in a reduction in the demand for telephones and affect the Post Office programme?
    The Prime Minister: The whole question of the balance of VAT has been debated many times in the past. The hon. Gentleman knows the situation. As I have emphasised, the demand for the telephone system is now very great
    1528
    indeed. The companies recognise this. The companies are working on long-term plans. [Interruption.] I hope that I have said enough to convince the hon. Gentleman.
    Hon. Members: Question No. 6.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I was just as interested as anyone else to go to Chesterfield, but the time has gone.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Are not there abundant precedents, Mr. Speaker, if an hon. Member has been called to put a Question—even if you, Mr. Speaker, change your mind afterwards—for the hon. Member to be allowed to put that Question?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I had called Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.
    Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it have been in order for the Prime Minister, in answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), to give assurances about the efficiency of telephonic communications between Wolverhampton and Chats-worth?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not detect a point of order, or much else, in that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): The business for the next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2ND APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Second Reading of the Costs in Criminal Cases Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
Motions relating to the Sugar (Distribution Payments) Orders.
TUESDAY 3RD APRIL—Supply (14th allotted day).
There will be a debate on Prices and Europe, which will arise on an Opposition motion.

1529
At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
Remaining stages of the Administration of Justices Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Housing (Payments for Well Maintained Houses) Order and on the Anti-Dumping Duty Order
WEDNESDAY 4TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Protection of Aircraft Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Bill [Lords] and of the Education Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Education (Work Experience) Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modifications) Order and on the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Variation) Scheme.
THURSDAY 5TH APRIL—Supply (15th allotted day).
There will be a debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Costs in Criminal Cases Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the Motor Cycles (Wearing of Helmets) Regulations.
FRIDAY 6TH APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 9TH APRIL—Supply (16th allotted day).
Debate on a subject to be announced.
Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position yet to tell the House when we may expect the debate in Government time on television and broadcasting?
Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman seen Early Day Motion No. 257 about Commonwealth sugar? In view of the deep anxiety, which is not confined to the Opposition side of the House, that, as we forecast two years ago, the Commonwealth sugar producers have been sold down the river in the negotiations in Brussels, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an authoritative Government statement on this matter next week?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made next week on the subject of building society
1530
mortgages in view of the clear lack of understanding on the part of the Prime Minister about either the causes of the rise in interest rates or what it means for an average family?
[That this House, noting the forthcoming meeting in London between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the trade ministers of Commonwealth sugar-producing countries, calls on Her Majesty's Government to reaffirm in unqualified terms their commitment to ensuring the access of 1·4 millions tons per year of Commonwealth sugar to the European Economic Community.]
Mr. Prior: On the first point—a debate on broadcasting—I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future, owing to the pressure of business, but I recognise that the House will want to have a debate, if I can arrange it. I do not think that it will be possible before Easter, but it will certainly be possible soon after Easter.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. But I am able to confirm that the 1·4 million tons, the figure for the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, remains the Government's firm intention, as stated in the Lancaster House agreement of 1971.
Regarding building society mortgage rates, the building societies made a statement about 10 days ago and that remains the present position. But I will convey the right hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend.
Dr. Stultaford: Will my right hon. Friend propose a motion to change the composition of Standing Committee G in respect of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill on the ground that it has not taken into account the views of the House as expressed in the Second Reading debate or the views of part of the Government side of the House as expressed in Early Day Motion No. 177? As it stands now, the Committee represents a manipulative measure more designed to assuage the anxieties of party managers than to be fair to Government back benches, and so does not represent fair principles of democracy and will tend to bring into disrepute the workings of the House in the country.

1531
[That this House, taking account of a recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in its Fifth Report, that the Government should take immediate steps to provide comprehensive family planning and birth control services as a normal part of the National Health Service, and noting the Amendment (No. 37) made to the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill in the House of Lords to the effect that no charge should be made for such services or medical supplies, calls upon the Government to act without delay on these two propositions.]
Mr. Prior: The answer to that is "No, Sir." I believe that over the years the Selection Committee has done an extremely good job for all hon. Members, and I think that it must be a matter for the Selection Committee and not for other hon. Members to interfere.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Has the right hon. Gentleman read what the Minister of Agriculture said yesterday, reported at c. 1308 of HANSARD, about the necessity for a Supplementary Estimate to cover the supplementary payments to refiners in the United Kingdom to improve the margin? When is it likely that we shall get this Supplementary Estimate, and why is it that the Supplementary Estimate will cover only the period until 30th June? Would not it be wise for the Estimate to cover a period much longer than that?
Mr. Prior: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend. I could not give an answer myself, but I shall let my right hon. Friend know, and I shall get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Is my right hon. Friend able to say when the promised announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment about the allocation of rooms in Somerset House will be made to the House?
Mr. Prior: I have written to my hon. Friend on this subject. My right hon. and learned Friend is holding consultations and hopes that these will be completed shortly.
Mr. Urwin: The right hon. Gentleman will probably be aware of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member
1532
for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), which is aimed at outlawing labour-only subcontracting, but is he aware of the growing urgency of the situation in the construction industry and of the very serious problems which are evolving, primarily for local authorities, in the construction of council housing because of the operation of labour-only sub-contracting? Does not he agree that people involved in this pernicious practice can virtually demand their own price for their labour, completely outwith the construction industry's negotiated agreement? Having regard to these very difficult problems, will the Leader of the House seriously consider allowing Government time—because my hon. Friend's Bill will take some time to become a Statute—for the House to discuss the serious problems affecting local authorities not only in London but throughout the country?
Mr. Prior: I will convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. and hon. Friends, who will no doubt discuss them. We all recognise the need to keep down the cost of building wherever possible.
Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the lies put out by Mark Press against this country—and I remind the House that Mark Press is the Irish Republic's public relations company—that there is no trail of guns, ammunitions and explosives from Eire into Northern Ireland for use by the IRA, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as soon as possible about the steps which are being taken to stop ships carrying such cargo coming from the Mediterranean—one of which, as we heard yesterday evening, was captured by the Eire Government? What surveillance is being maintained to prevent the importation and smuggling of guns and explosives into Northern Ireland?
Mr. Prior: This is a subject which my hon. Friend can raise this afternoon, but on the whole I believe that the House has good reason to be satisfied with the news today.
Mr. Faulds: Since it is now generally accepted that the Government are about to abandon the imposition of museum charges, will the Leader of the House clear the air for staff and trustees of the national institutions, and lessen the hesitations of intending benefactors, by

1533
making clear that the Government will announce the abandonment of this ridiculous scheme?
Mr. Prior: I have no further statement to make on that subject.
Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend say whether it will be possible to find time to debate the reintroduction of capital punishment for politically-motivated crimes?
Mr. Prior: I can see no time available in the immediate future, although I understand there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss this matter briefly in the next week or so.
Mr. David Steel: When will the Leader of the House set up the Select Committee on British interests in South Africa, in view of the encouragement given to this course by the Prime Minister?
Mr. Prior: There is, of course, concern about this matter, which the whole House shares, but I have nothing to add to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday.
Mr. Marten: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that within the next week or 30 days he will allow time for a debate on the ever-increasing pile of secondary legislation that is coming in from the Common Market in draft form? Is he aware that this deals with basic domestic laws and that these matters are being debated elsewhere but not in this House? That is not right
Mr. Prior: I hope to find some time in the near future to bring about what my hon. Friend has long wished for.
Mr. Shore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand the first issue of the draft agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Ministers in April—a document which was made available for the first time only yesterday? Is he aware that the agenda contains many important items, including amendment of the law on tachographs, aid for hill farmers, pricing policy in the Common Market for 1973–74 and many other matters which are to be discussed next month at the meeting of the Ministers? Will he arrange to find time, if not this week then the following week, to discuss some of these matters? Will he think again about making an oral statement on the
1534
draft agenda for the Council rather than making a statement in written form?
Mr. Prior: I hope that it is proving of some convenience for the House to have this list of likely items in the discussion which will take place. As for the making of monthly oral statements about each month's forecast of business, I confirm what I said in my statement on 13 th March I then informed the House, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. S. James A. Hill), that a forecast of each month's business would be deposited with us on Tuesday. We can discuss the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the debate which I have promised before Easter.
Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the statement yesterday by the Minister that the Bill to enable elections to be held in Northern Ireland will be put before the House as soon as possible, and because of the urgency of these elections, will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill is to be presented?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may have more to say about that subject this afternoon. I will leave it to him.
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further about a Select Committee on South Africa? We regarded the Prime Minister's statement on Tuesday on this subject as helpful, but is the Leader of the House aware that if the Prime Minister's statement is to mean anything—and I believe that it was intended to mean something—either the existing Select Committee must interpret its terms of reference in a way which will enable it to go to South Africa or to send hon. Members to South Africa, or —as would appear to be more appropriate—the Government, and the Leader of the House himself, must take the initiative in establishing a new committee. Will he move to set up a new Select Committee? If not, does he agree that it is within the authority of existing Select Committees to make their own arrangements to go to South Africa?
Mr. Prior: I am not convinced that a new Select Committee is required—given that other Select Committees may consider that this is a matter for them to go into, and given also the other action which is now being taken.
Mr. Frank Allaun: When are we to have the promised Government proposals to deal with land hoarding? It may be remembered that the Secretary of State for the Environment promised that they would be produced this month. He will have a job to produce them this month when one considers that today is 29th March. Is there some difficulty in plugging up loopholes in the legislation, or is there some other reason for delay? May we be told when the House will have the proposals?
Mr. Prior: Early next month.
Mr. Winterton: The House has spent considerable time recently in debating family planning. Would it not help those in this House who have young families to plan for the future if they knew details of the Easter recess? May we now have the details?
Mr. Prior: Not this week.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Hardman Committee report is to be discussed in the House, or, indeed, how it will be dealt with? This is a matter of considerable public interest in terms of the future of Western Scotland and at the moment it is difficult to know how the Government intend to process that report.
Mr. Prior: It is an important report, and some time ago I told the House that it had been received. Consultations are now taking place, and I will convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the appropriate quarters.
Mr. Thorpe: The Leader of the House was trying to be helpful in saying that he felt that there was no need for a new Select Committee to be set up on the question of South Africa, and he implied
1536
that he felt that an existing Select Committee might be adequate to deal with this problem. Which Select Committee did the right hon. Gentleman have in mind?
Mr. Prior: It is not for me to give that information. There are opportunities for the various Select Committees to interest themselves in this matter if they wish to do so.
Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point, will the right hon. Gentleman, before he meets me at 5.30 p.m. today to discuss this matter further, consider whether a sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee might go into this matter, especially since one sub-committee is about to complete its work on regional incentives? Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether its chairman and members would be willing to take on this new task? If that were done, perhaps our meeting would be more fruitful.
Mr. Prior: This is a matter for Select Committees or for their sub-committees to decide for themselves.
Mr. Callaghan: In that case, will the Minister look into the situation before 5.30 this afternoon, because my inquiries show that some members of the subcommittee of the Expenditure Committee to which I have referred would be willing to take on this task before Easter?
Mr. Prior: I am not certain that it is the job of the Leader of the House to direct any sub-committee or Select Committee to inquire into anything. It is a matter for them.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have before us a very important debate.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NORTHERN IRELAND (WHITE PAPER)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28th March],
  That this House approves the White Paper on Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals (Command Paper No. 5259).—[The Prime Minister.]
  Question again proposed.
  3.49 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: The question which the House has to decide tonight involves the acceptance or rejection of the logic of the constitutional White Paper on Northern Ireland. I believe that the Government had the right to ask for a clear decision. This is not a Green Paper on the future constitution of Northern Ireland, nor can the present state of the Province stand a "take note" attitude in this debate. What is before us is a draft constitution which the people of Northern Ireland—and it is their choice, and theirs alone—must accept or reject, as a basis for further discussion or debate on detail, but on the basis of implementation of its principles.
  On that choice depends not only the immediate problem of peace and reconciliation in the Province but also the whole issue of the link with Britain. Comfortable though it may seem to some, no one in Ulster, in our view, can in one breath reject the White Paper and in the next say he is doing so to prove his loyalty to Britain, his desire to show that he is more British than the British. The oft-abused word "loyalist" is now to be put to the test, as indeed are all sections of opinion in Northern Ireland. Therefore, if tonight's vote is challenged, my right hon. Friends and I will vote for the White Paper in the Lobby and we appeal to as many of our hon. Friends as possible to vote with us.
  This does not mean that we regard the White Paper as perfect. It does mean that we accept from the Government that they have approached this problem on the basis of the fullest possible consideration and consultation. Indeed, it could be said that they have delayed their decision almost to the point of danger. We accept, and we hope the House will
  1538
  accept, that the White Paper, in the Government's judgment—and it is their judgment; it must be—is the fairest and most balanced proposition they feel they can put forward. That is the Government's assertion, and they have the right to ask for the backing of this House not only for a fair consideration but, more than that, for its full-hearted implementation by the people of Northern Ireland.
  To us this is an honest attempt to put constitutional flesh and blood on the bones of the Downing Street Agreement of 20th August 1969, which the then Government regarded as a corollary to our action in putting in British troops in a major security rôle. In the longer term, it must be regarded as aimed at providing a basis for creating a situation in which the troops could in fact be withdrawn and purely civilian safeguards for law and order left to operate. But this must obviously be a long-term development.
  We could criticise this or that particular paragraph or proposal, but in the last resort the judgment must be that of the Northern Ireland communities themselves. It is not for us in this House, I suggest, to amend, still less to encourage factional division on, detailed proposals. We, this House, and Northern Ireland have already waited too long. But the people of Northern Ireland must realise that if on a free vote, in the security of the ballot box, they reject the main principles of this document, this must inevitably mean an agonising reappraisal over the whole field of the Great Britain-Northern Ireland relationship.
  In giving the Government full support in the lobbies tonight, should a Division be called, this does not mean that we endorse all the decisions and policies which have led us and Northern Ireland to the point at which this White Paper is presented. The Secretary of State would not expect that. There have been errors —errors of judgment, in our view, though not in the main basically misdirected policies. Perhaps most of all there have been errors of timing, and failure to capitalise on opportunities presented either by outside events or sometimes by well-thought-out actions of the Government themselves.
  We regret that the Government did not take action nearly two years ago now when we called for virtually total withdrawal of gun licences. We believe that

  1539
  the internment decision as soon as the House was up in August 1971 heralded a new and much more dangerous situation from which we are still barely recovering. And, again, for too long there was too confident a belief, repeatedly stated, that the security operations were about to come out on top against the wreakers of violence.
  Again, when we thought the Government were prepared to enter into all-party talks here and in both the areas of the Irish dimension on our 15-point proposals, there was, first, delay and then a sudden change of front on the part of the Government, immediately after Lord Devlin's BBC programme. Following that programme, the Government reacted wrongly, in our view. But they decided and announced—and this was fully within their rights as a Government—that they would produce their own solution.
  That solution took the best part of three months, during which there was Bloody Sunday, during which paramilitary mobilisation developed on the other side. Seventeen weeks passed, in fact, before the Government were ready to announce their proposals, and there was an unfortunate leak, very early in that period, of the main principles on which they had decided. This inflamed attitudes in the North and drove hard-line militants to redouble their preparations.
  The proposals, when they finally came just a year ago, were, despite the loss of irrecoverable time, rightly judged, in our opinion, and we said so at the time. They fell far short of our own proposals, but we gave them our full support. We had never sought recourse to direct rule any more than had the Government. Neither of us wanted it. But in the circumstances of a year ago the Government had no option, and we gave them our fullest backing in the Division Lobby. As the Prime Minister recalls, I took a ministerial broadcast reply for one purpose only—to make it clear, above all in Northern Ireland, that he had the full support of the Opposition in the action he had taken.
  Having set out what we consider to be the unfortunate aspects of the Government's policy during those months before direct rule, I think it right to say, and it must be said, that the right hon.
  1540
  Gentleman the Secretary of State, once he had assumed the invidious and unsought responsibility as arbiter of the fortunes of the Northern Ireland people, in our view discharged his proconsular responsibilities with an even hand, with a growing degree of trust, with courage, and indeed, on more than one occasion, with imagination. He was criticised for meeting the IRA, and indeed he has regretted it since. I think that, however unfortunately that turned out, he was right to do it, as I believe we were right in similar and equally unproductive action. He showed parallel courage in the release of some internees, thought it is arguable that he had the worst of both worlds in that while releasing so many he did not seek the advantages he might have derived by ending internment entirely, as was expected when direct rule was introduced.
  It is easy, looking back, to regard Operation Motorman as a success so obvious that he might have done it at any time, but that cannot have been now it appeared to the right hon. Gentleman and the security forces in advance of that difficult operation. I think we were all delighted that it went through so successfully and speedily and with minimal loss of life. With hindsight, it was easy to say he could have done it before, but it was an act of courage when it happened which could have led to a heavy loss of life.
  Some of us felt—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may later himself have come to feel—that the political bonus which he gained from the success of that operation might have been used almost within the hour to enable him to grasp the nettle of internment. For, whatever the military and security arguments for internment, no one can deny that, as we warned, for every murderer or potential murderer interned—and I say nothing of those who were wrongly interned—ten or a dozen or more young people were recruited to the cause of violence, to the forces of evil, as though dragons' teeth had been sown and sprung to arms.
  Throughout this period we continued without avail to press for energetic action against the private holding of lethal weapons, against the tolerance of illegal paramilitary political forces provocatively flaunting their illegal uniforms, against their implied threat to law and order.

  1541
  We on this side of the House have consistently argued—indeed, it was the whole basis of the Downing Street Declaration in 1969—that the problems of Northern Ireland were not susceptible to a purely military solution, that there must be a political solution. But despite all our reservations about what had happened, the delays and the missed opportunities, as we see them, the errors, above all of timing, we regard it as our duty today to join the Government in commending to the people of Northern Ireland the political solution they have devised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has set out our approach to the individual issues raised in the White Paper. I do not think it profitable for us to seek to amend, still less to interpret, the individual paragraphs with a nicely calculated less-or-more argument. It is as a package that the Government have presented these proposals to the House and it is as a package that they must be taken or rejected by this House, and still more by the people of Northern Ireland.
  But I join with my hon. Friend in pressing with all the emphasis at our command the paramount need for speedy elections. I think Northern Ireland wants elections. I believe the people in Northern Ireland really need elections, after all they have been through. They need an opportunity to register a vote for their own future, rather than feel that they are being pushed around, whether by politicians whose gold backing in terms of electoral support has not yet been proved, or, worse still, by men of violence on either side.
  I plead with the Government not to allow the Assembly elections to be delayed until the autumn. Whatever hope, whatever magic, even, there is in the White Paper can be destroyed in the torrid high noon of the marching season this summer. There is no possible justification for delay. The Government must produce their legislation, whether one Bill or more, with the utmost speed. It is a reflection, perhaps, on their foresight and planning—and I think that the Secretary of State will not object to what I am saying here—that, eight months after Operation Motorman, the Bill is not ready with the White Paper. We made clear, the day after the White Paper was
  1542
  published, our determination to give the Government all reasonable assistance in speeding the passage of the legislation, whether it be one Bill or more than one.
  Should there be any doubts on this score, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South has proposed that the representation of the people clauses of the legislation should be in a separate Bill which would be given right of way over all the other Ulster legislation. If that is decided upon, we shall support it. But if that path cannot be followed for any reason, if the electoral provisions are to be included in the major constitutional Bill, I hope that there will be no argument to the effect that the electoral procedures—the machinery—cannot be set in motion until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. I hope that the passage of the Second Reading of the Bill, in whatever form, would be taken by the Government as giving parliamentary authority for going ahead with all the decisions and electoral machinery procedures that are required. If there are any arguments about that proposal, we would be prepared to make another one—to support a special motion in the House authorising the Government to proceed with the necessary pre-election arrangements.
  We urge that the Assembly elections must be held within the next three months. We must not allow the commitment to hold the postponed local elections in May to stand in the way. There are two arguments here. First, even those who feel it right to have the local elections before the Assembly elections ought, in our view, to agree that this order of priorities should not be insisted upon if it means putting off the Assembly elections to the autumn. In our view, there is an undeniable argument on merit for saying that the Assembly elections should precede the local elections.
  If the local elections come first, they will inevitably be fought much more on the White Paper than on local issues. There are many acute students of these matters, from within and without Northern Ireland, who believe that, at the end of the day, when the nightmare of these past years is over, it will be the progress at local, community level in housing and other community problems that can ultimately be the greatest healing factor of all.

  1543
  Secondly, there is the danger that local elections fought primarily on a factional or sectarian basis will not only fail to give an opportunity for the silent, non-sectarian or cross-sectarian votes to express a constructive vote; there is the further danger that the voting might have a further and undesirable reaction on the Assembly elections themselves if they were to come later.
  Then again, there is the additional practical factor that two elections within so short a period could impose an excessive strain both on the financial and on the organisational resources of parties and groupings, particularly the smaller ones, which have the right to be heard and to support in the ballot box. I urge the Government at all costs to ensure that the Assembly elections are held before the end of June.
  It may be that the Secretary of State is loath to postpone the local elections for a second time. We understand his problem. We shall not criticise him if he does so, and I do not think that others will. We shall support him. But I hope that he will accept our arguments for ensuring that, whenever the local elections come, they will follow and not precede the Assembly elections. I owe what I have to suggest now to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) who, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, hopes to develop the proposal further.
  We propose that the Government should now publish the date for the Assembly elections, giving this House and all in Northern Ireland the timetable necessary for all the premilinaries to be carried through on a D-10 or D-20 or D-2 months basis so that we can all see the timetable we are working on—and above all so that the people of Northern Ireland can see it.
  Nothing so concentrates the mind of democracy in a period of major constitutional change as a fixed date. That was Earl Attlee's achievement in India. It has been a constitutional catalyst. More than that, it has provided a degree of constitutional magic time after time in situations not all that different from this one.
  I must refer to points raised in the debate by a number of hon. Members
  1544
  about representation of Northern Ireland at Westminster. We support the White Paper on this question. It is not only that an increase in the numbers of Northern Ireland Members here would sharply increase the possibility that the majority of any Government, Conservative or Labour, could depend on a predominantly Unionist vote. I believe that this is an important issue relevant to the governance of Northern Ireland itself. For example, Sir Winston Churchill's Government in 1951 might not have been able to introduce a major Irish measure because of that level of dependence on the Northern Irish vote, which at the time was largely concentrated in a single party.
  Again, if the Prime Minister himself in June 1970 had acquired an overall majority of, say, 10 or 12, even the present degree of Ulster representation, without expansion, could, if all the Unionists were hostile, have prevented him from carrying this White Paper through except with the support of the Opposition.
  I say with the greatest respect to hon. Members from Northern Ireland—and, however much we may disagree with a number of things said and with certain events in the past, we in this House have genuine respect for other points of view—that I do not need to underline the dangers for Northern Ireland policy if a Government with a highly vulnerable majority in this House had to negotiate a fair and balanced package with all sections of opinion in Northern Ireland when one such section had a virtual veto in Westminster.
  I have said that we are not going to criticise individual paragraphs of the White Paper. But the Government have left a number of important questions open, some of which are, I think, rightly intended to be left for the people of Northern Ireland themselves to pronounce upon, with the Secretary of State taking certain final decisions. One of these relates to power sharing. This is not in any sense spelt out in the White Paper I for one would be content with that, on the assumption that the Government intend to take their final decisions after, and not before, the election of the Assembly.
  Clearly, the Secretary of State should be free to discuss these matters, but the whole White Paper and all it represents

  1545
  could be imperilled if there were to be any question of a prior deal with one or other faction in Northern Ireland. I hope I am wrong in reading the conference proceedings of one Northern Ireland party last Tuesday as implying a demand for separate negotiations before the election of the Assembly, or separate clarifications or—still worse—a separate deal with the Secretary of State, going beyond the parameters of the White Paper. It would not be playing straight with the House of Commons or with the people of Northern Ireland if what we are asked to approve today could be changed by separate and secret negotiations. Indeed, a unilateral deal made at the expense of the views and interests of other parties with equal right to be heard would not be conducive to a final settlement, still less to a spirit of reconciliation.
  Power sharing has been left vague, which creates great difficulty for many interests in Northern Ireland of every point of view. The Irish dimension has been left vague. I myself have been thinking a great deal about this, and I do not complain on the point. This matter involves the Government of the Republic of Ireland, who had been barely confirmed in office when the White Paper was almost in final draft.
  But the Government's proposal for a tripartite conference is, in our view, right. I would go further and describe it as imaginative—if I did not regard it as the adoption in miniature of the kind of consultations between Westminster, Belfast and Dublin envisaged in my 15-point programme. So, obviously, because of my usual modesty, I will restrain my hyperbole and just say it is right.
  I hope, however, that the Government will not seek to set arbitrary limits on the issues which can be debated either in that conference or, ultimately, in the Council of Ireland when it is established. If the Council of Ireland is to be regarded simply as a soulless economic, consultative body, a sort of all-Irish OECD or a glorified chamber of commerce, not only will a great opportunity be missed but disillusion could set in fast, North and South of the border—and disillusion in Ireland spells danger.
  The theme of my 15-point speech, as long ago as November 1971, was that when men have nothing to hope for, men

  1546
  of violence have everything to shoot for. The proposals on the Irish dimension must therefore provide hope. As I argued in that speech so long ago, it is in my view essential that, within the terms of reference of the Council of Ireland or the tripartite commission which I proposed in my second point, there should be provision for the examination of what would be involved in agreeing on a constitution of a united Ireland—while repeating once again my fifth principle, namely no union without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Nevertheless, what I was proposing then and propose now is that, without prejudice to the right of the Northern Ireland people to decide their own future, as set out in the Attlee Declaration, in the 1969 Downing Street Declaration and again in this White Paper—and, I understand in the legislation which is to follow—the Council of Ireland should have power—if this is agreed—to embark on what might be called a feasibility study to include an examination of the very deep social and economic questions which would require solution in a United Ireland.
  In my speech of November 1971 I suggested that a term of 15 years was the minimum required for the implementation of such a proposal, even granted the full acceptance of the principle by the people of Northern Ireland. But I believe that peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland will be assisted if, following the discussions with the proposed Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of the Republic, such terms of reference could be included in the work of the Council of Ireland.
  This White Paper is an answer to our demand for a political solution. It is perilously late but it accepts our point that while the security forces must be given every backing in getting on top of violence, there is at the end of the road no military solution but only a political solution. We emphasise that that political solution must give the right of free expression, as the White Paper proposes, to all those in Northern Ireland who believe that reason, tolerance and compromise, not violence or the veneration of long-dead household gods, should be the basis of the creation of the Northern Ireland of the future.

  1547
  This is a problem not for Northern Ireland only, it it ever was. It is a problem and a challenge to hon. Members on this side of the water and all whom we represent here. There is hardly an hon. Member from England, Scotland or Wales who does not know constituents who have served in the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, in many cases not just once or twice, but three or four times, and now a fifth time. Each of us knows and the Government know, the appalling strain on the Armed Forces, on our constituents. Their loyalty and dedication to duty is not in question. This has been shown.
  But we have a duty, too—and that is not to impose on the loyalty and dedication of the Armed Forces more than they can reasonably be asked to bear. They were put in to hold the ring and to preserve an impartial security authority, and they were cheered when they went into action in August 1969. They were never asked by their presence to provide a political solution, still less to provide a military solution in the absence of a political solution.
  There are many Members in this House who mourn, just as every Northern Irish Member mourns, the loss of constituents, the direct victims of violence. Many on this side of the water know of the tragic loss of a young constituent and in some cases many constituents. Many of us have come to know something of the tragedy that has overtaken British homes on this side of the water. In my own constituency I can think of a young man who joined up because he could not get a job in an area of heavy youth unemployment, and very soon after he was killed his father committed suicide. This is not an isolated case and there is nothing more unjustified than for anyone in this House today to regard the events of Northern Ireland as taking place in a far away country of which we know little or nothing, or care nothing. It is not a far away country. It is not even a problem on our doorstep. It is a problem within our curtilage, and we all bear responsibility for it.
  It is a problem not only for those who in Northern Ireland are of an age to pronounce and vote under the terms of this White Paper. As much as anything, it is a problem of education. My right

  1548
  hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), whose own courageous and imaginative contribution to the solution of these problems in the troubled months of 1969 and 1970 will be remembered for all the years to come, once put the issue very simply. "What a difference there would be in Northern Ireland", he said, "if the schoolchildren of the two main communities were learning their Irish history from the same textbooks."
  That was some time ago, but some of the children still at school when he spoke have already been recruited into what 18 months ago, recalling a famous Will Dyson cartoon, I called the class of 1990. Perhaps I was optimistic and looking too far ahead. The age of consent in terrorist terms has now reached so young a generation that I should have referred then to the class of 1980 or even 1975.
  The House today faces a great responsibility. I have expressed our reservations, as I have a right and a duty to do, about errors of judgment or of timing over this past two years. They will not affect the vote I shall cast or the vote I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to cast this evening. Still less, I hope, will ancestral voices of the 'twenties or the nineteenth, eighteenth or seventeenth centuries dictate the response, whether of hon. Members of this House or of those with whom the final decision lies, the people of Northern Ireland. This House and, after this House has given a decision, still more, the people of Northern Ireland, are faced with a choice, a challenge and a great opportunity. It is a new start, a fresh start which is at their command. Let none of the people of this unhappy, war-torn, bewildered Province delude themselves when they have to take the decision we are presenting to them.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman but there is just one point I should like him to clarify. Why does he say that it is wrong for a minority in Northern Ireland to hold the balance here at Westminster when at the same time he appears to argue that a minority in Northern Ireland should have a right of veto in the Parliament of Northern Ireland?
  Mr Wilson: I was not referring to a right of veto in the Parliament of

  1549
  Northern Ireland. We hope that the result of the Assembly elections will be to provide a viable Assembly. That will be the case if no hon. Member in this House or in Northern Ireland speaks of being elected to the Assembly only to wreck its proceedings.
  I have consistently rejected the seductive arguments of those who say that we should pull the troops out and leave the Irish of all factions to cut one another's throats. A withdrawal, a denial of adequate security provision, as I have repeatedly said, could lead to a bloodbath, a massacre, which would make St. Bartholomew's Eve look like a vicarage tea party, and the victims, in all probability, would not necessarily be of the same faith as the victims of St. Bartholomew's Eve. But those who are determined to base their response to this White Paper on the dictates of short-term political advantage or on ancient and now totally irrelevant historical allegiance must realise that there is a growing feeling on this side of the water —a feeling that in my view must not command our vote tonight—that we cannot indefinitely commit the security forces to the task they have fulfilled with such courage and devotion over these years.
  Last December I referred to the growing impatience of the British public, faced with a situation in which the writ of law and order increasingly ceased to run, a situation
  "in which British troops are … caught in a cross-fire which British public opinion is increasingly regarding as intolerable."
  The public opinion it is our duty to represent in this House will not tolerate for long the continuance either of terrorism or a spate of bilateral sectarian assassinations.
  Her Majesty's Government have at long last injected into the situation the basis for a political solution. Those whom we represent in this House will be disposed to show little patience for any who seek to impose on the Government, or on this House, a cross-fire of political manoeuvring. Still less would they be prepared to tolerate recourse to violence which could inflict on the Armed Forces what I have referred to as a
  "cross-fire of murder and assassination".
  Two successive Governments, two successive Parliaments, perhaps more, have earned the right to insist that the people
  1550
  of Northern Ireland, in the freedom of democratic choice through the ballot-box, should now decide this issue against a background fairly set out and clearly stated on the first page of the White Paper where the Government, speaking for all of us, say something which has not been picked up much in the discussions on the White Paper:
  "As long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament must be acknowledged, and due provision made for the Uniled Kingdom Government to have an effective and continuing voice in Northern Ireland's affairs, commensurate with the commitment of financial, economic and military resources in the Province."
  It is the claim that I urged more than 18 months ago, that, whether in fiscal terms or the provision of a military contribution to security, the Imperial Parliament and those we represent cannot long be asked to shoulder a burden of taxation without representation. The stake that we have earned and now seek to turn into reality is the demand that with this White Paper the people of Northern Ireland now, by free and democratic vote, shoulder the decision which is rightly theirs. It is their right, and it is equally their duty. For in military terms alone, the Forces of the Crown have done their duty, beyond any ordinary call of duty, and in conditions in which no other force has been trained to operate or called to operate—with wives and families similarly asked to share anxieties beyond any ordinary call.
  With the approval of the White Paper tonight, the decision is increasingly transferred from the sentry post, the street patrol, the Saracen, the control point, the road-block, to the ballot-box.
  The Government have responded, as I have said, overlate to our demand that military containment must give way to a political solution. But from today, the responsibility for Westminster's political solution becoming a reality passes from this House over the water to Northern Ireland itself. Whether there is after tonight a political solution depends on one thing—the response of the people of Northern Ireland.
  I said a few moments ago that this was a challenge, an opportunity. The people of Northern Ireland, who have walked in darkness, are now bathed in at least the prospect of light. With this

  1551
  White Paper, they now have the chance, forswearing private ambition, sectarian ambition and every partial affection, to express in the secrecy of the ballot their own desires for the future of their country.
  When they do so, with the heart-felt concern and prayers of all of us in this House and those we represent, let them recognise that not only is this for them their opportunity. It may be more than that. It may be their last.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1973.

  2. Fire Precautions (Loans) Act 1973.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (WHITE PAPER)
  Question again proposed.
  4.22 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): I start by thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for his generous personal remarks. He perfectly fairly continued to put forward various arguments and said that I may in the past year have made some mistakes. If there is any man who has ever dealt with the affairs of Northern Ireland or any part of Ireland who can say after a year that he had not made mistakes, he is a brave man, and I am certainly not that man.
  I recognise at once that there may well have been mistakes—mistakes of timing and action. When important decisions come in as fast as they do, one would not be human if one did not make mistakes from time to time. I do not in any way resent that comment. I seek only to learn from the mistakes that I may have made and that others may have made in the past.
  1552
  The right hon. Gentleman said that with the passing of this White Paper the response will be with the people of Northern Ireland. With that I agree, and I put one further point which I believe would be accepted by a large number of people in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We in this House have also a clear responsibility to give a lead.
  There may be those in this House who do not like the White Paper; there may be those who believe it will not work; there may be those who are determined for one reason or another to oppose it. Very well. That is their decision. But I believe that the people in this country and in Northern Ireland are entitled to say to those who think that the White Paper is wrong or who are determined to vote against it that it should be given a chance to work by the people in Northern Ireland who have to work it. I hope that those who oppose the White Paper will do nothing to discourage those who seek to work the White Paper. If they were to do that a heavy responsibility would rest upon their shoulders.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State will reply to some of the detailed comments that have been made during the debate and will speak on the issues for which he bears responsibility.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined the basic background of the White Paper. In seeking to respond to the various trends that have developed in the debate so far, I shall naturally do so from the background of close firsthand experience in Northern Ireland during the past year.
  Inevitably, some issues and some horrors loom much larger—perhaps sometimes too large—in one's mind if one has had to live very close to them. One's judgment of the broad scene can be impaired as a result. That is particularly true of Northern Ireland, where things often appear very different on the spot from the way they appear when viewed from Westminster or, indeed, on a television screen. Although my experience has left some indelible impressions and some very firm views in my mind, I welcome the opportunity of this debate to test them in the House. It is of importance that in this debate we should be able to stand somewhat further back from the scene.

  1553
  It is clear from yesterday's debate that I should deal first with our major priority, which is the whole problem of violence. There was a reference in the House yesterday to the morale of the security forces, and I want to underline what my right hon. Friend said. Despite the extremely difficult conditions under which our troops operate, the state of their morale is very high because at present they are succeeding, and nothing succeeds like success.
  The month of March, with two days to go, has been the most successful month ever in the campaign against terrorist crimes. In the last week alone, the Chief Constable has reported that 47 people have been charged. Of those charges, 24 were for firearms offences, 13 for explosives offences, one for murder, three for conspiracy to murder and six for armed robbery. That is in one week. For the month of March so far the total number of people charged is 158, and that brings the total since the beginning of the year to 409.
  The courts have been handing out the most severe penalties to those who are pursuing violence. In Belfast courts so far this year 156 people have been sentenced to a total of 725 years' imprisonment, plus two life sentences and one death sentence. In the winter Assizes 13 people received sentences totalling 67½ years. In the City Commission 23 people have been sentenced to 136½ years. In the High Court four people were sentenced to 29 years.
  These detailed statistics are important because they prove conclusively that the security forces are hitting the terrorists very hard. They need to be given, because often in the past the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army have felt that insufficient recognition is given to their successes. Although I do not think the media present these facts on this side of the water with as much prominence as they might, though there are welcome signs of improvement, the facts are certainly getting through to the people of Northern Ireland. More and more people there are getting the message that violence is not paying off and that the chances of getting caught are now considerably greater. There is no greater deterrent to crime than the fear of being caught.
  1554
  I should like to pay very special tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army for all they are doing in this regard. It should also be said at this time—it is often said in troubles of this sort, whether of war or something approaching war as we now have—that relations between the civil power and the military and security forces can sometimes be difficult. I can only say that my own personal relationships with the two GOC's and with the Chief Constable have been first class. I am most grateful to them and sincerely hope that they would reciprocate that our relations have been very good in that time.
  There are those in the House who think that the Army or the police should take further action. We are only too ready to consider any constructive proposals put forward by people who have been on the spot and to see whether further action can be taken. But let no one doubt that the problem of dealing with guerrilla forces in heavily populated areas is an extremely difficult one, as security forces all over the world have very well recognised.
  The reason for the successes of our forces recently has been the increased co-operation and support for them from all parts of the community. This was becoming apparent before the publication of the White Paper, but has been most marked since that event.
  It is too early yet to say for certain that the battle for public support is won, but the use of the confidential telephone is indeed most impressive and that must be an indicator. The Chief Constable tells me that the March figure for calls received is running at the rate of 15 a day. Yesterday there was a record for a 24-hour period of 100 calls. So far the March total is over 400.
  The public desire to co-operate in detecting those responsible for the appalling, savage and inhuman murder of the three sergeants which has been condemned on both sides of the House has been most marked. Over 2,500 direct telephone calls have been received by the police working on this case. The material received is being sifted most urgently.
  At this stage I should also like to recognise the considerable help we have had from the security forces in the

  1555
  Republic. In particular, I am sure the whole House will welcome the successful action of the authorities in the Republic last night in intercepting a very substantial quantity of arms which was being shipped into their country.
  Further to combat terrorism, the Government hope within the next few Jays to publish a Bill which will deal with the recommendations of the Diplock Commission and repeal the Special Powers Act, re-enacting only those provisions in it which in the Government's view are essential. The intention is that such proposals will be in force only during an emergency and that this will be a matter for this House.
  I regard the provisions of the Diplock Commission as complementary to the other proposals in the White Paper dealing with human rights. The Diplock Commission itself drew attention to the problems in Northern Ireland of preserving the rule of law. While there is intimidation and violence, the courts are in very real difficulty in dealing with terrorism. While there is terrorism, the normal freedom of the individual under the law is inevitably denied.
  It is a sad fact that it is necessary for the time being to retain in the proposed legislation those provisions of the Detention of Terrorists Order which provide for extra-judicial processes. But the underlying intention of the recommendations of the Diplock Commission is to provide means by which more people could be brought before the normal courts of law rather than dealt with by extra-judicial processes. This, I am sure the House will agree, is a move in the right direction. But it would be a mistake to assume that procedural improvements of the kind proposed in the Diplock Commission will by themselves be sufficient to deal with terrorism.
  There remain those people who intimidate and who kill, and, as the Diplock Commission itself says, so long as this is so, detention procedures are unavoidable.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) asked about the sectarian breakdown of detainees.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: While the right hon. Gentleman is still on the Diplock Report, first, would he confirm that the
  1556
  orders that may be necessary under the Diplock legislation will be subject to affirmative resolution in this House?
  Second, would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend yesterday? If, as we understand it, Diplock is coming in the earliest of the Bills before us and the human rights are to be enshrined in the second and major constitutional Bill, would it not be right, even if that is to be so, that at the time when he publishes the Dip-lock Bill he should publish the text of what he intends in respect of human rights so that we can look at the two together?
  There will be anxieties about Diplock, and very deep ones. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman knows that. It would be very good if we could see the other side of the matter in the shape of what will be done to give effect to the human rights declaration.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first point is "Yes". They will be affirmative orders.
  As to the second point, I am afraid I do not think that it would be possible to do that completely, but I note the point and I will see in what way we might be able to help in that procedure.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster asked about the sectarian breakdown of detainees, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that I would deal with this point. The position is that a total of 389 people either have been detained by the Commissioners or are at present held on interim custody orders awaiting hearings. Of these, 367 are Catholics and 22 are Protestants. One hundred and four people have been released by the Commissioners and five on appeal from the Commissioners. Sixty-three of those released were formerly in internment, 31 were in detention and 15 were subject to interim custody.
  These figures show clearly the extent to which the Detention of Terrorists Order operates completely independently of the Executive and of Ministers. I can only repeat to the House that, having had this particular responsibility over the year, I am utterly convinced that the Detention of Terrorists Order, which I believe is essential in the present circumstances, is

  1557
  an instrument removed from the executive and therefore quite different in kind from what internment was in the past.
  Several hon. Members during the debate have raised the question whether persons holding Republican views or being members of Sinn Fein or Republican clubs can stand for election to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although this appears to be a question about electoral law, it is really about something much wider. As to electoral law, anyone can stand for election, whatever view he or she may hold. There is nothing in electoral law to prevent an individual belonging to a proscribed organisation standing for election as a representative of that organisation. But frankly, left in that way, that would be a misleading answer. The fact that a person is so standing gives him no immunity from the criminal law, and that is the important point.
  Her Majesty's Government will certainly consider most carefully the views put forward in the debate, but I must repeat what is said quite categorically in the White Paper—that no person or organisation can expect to be allowed to claim to be acting politically at one moment and then, given what appears a favourable opportunity, to turn to violence and subversion at the next.
  The Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and many other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in the debate have raised the question of early elections.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I come back to the question of proscription in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman raised it? If it is the case— and of course the right hon. Gentleman is speaking with advice—that it would be possible for anybody to stand but that he or she would be subject to the criminal law, what, then, is the point of proscription under the Special Powers Act or any other existing legislation?
  Mr. Whitelaw: In other matters than standing for election, proscription can be, and of course is, applied in the South to certain aspects of Republican activity and in the North it applies to the law relating to elections. I would not wish to go further at this stage because, as I have said, I will consider most carefully the views put forward in the debate.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I realise the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, but surely the point is that on the ballot paper will appear the name of the candidate's party or organisation. I understand that any individual can stand, but will the right hon. Gentleman say that if a candidate supports, for example, the Provisional Sinn Fein, the Republican Club, the Provisional UVF, or whatever in his political approach to problems, that fact will appear on the ballot paper?
  Mr. Whitelaw: There will be opportunities to argue this on the whole basis of proscription and whether a particular organisation should be proscribed. I should like to go into these matters and come back to the House with a more complete answer, because they are detailed and complex issues.
  Mr. Frank McManus: On another point closely connected with this, am I right in thinking that the local government elections, if and when they take place this spring, will preclude persons who have recorded against them a sentence of three months or more? I am thinking particularly of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and myself. Is it a fact that all three of us, should we wish to stand, are precluded by regulation from so doing?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I should have to look into that, but I do not think it is so. If it were so I should find it difficult to stop the two hon. Gentlemen concerned from standing if they so desired. I shall certainly look into the matter.
  Perhaps I may now turn to the demands from all sides of the House for early elections. As the exchange between the hon. Member for Leeds, South and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday showed, there was a clear request for elections in June. It is only right that I should spell out very clearly what are the practical implications of such a decision from the administrative point of view. I owe that to the House.
  First, if this course is to be taken two Bills will be needed. The constitutional Bill dealing with the legislative proposals must inevitably be a long and complicated measure. It is vital to get it right

  1559
  and therefore to avoid the ambiguities and difficulties which arose between Stormont and Westminster in the past.
  The Bill will need to be very carefully drafted and very carefully scrutinised in the House. This inevitably takes time. It will be produced as soon as possible, and, even though it will need careful scrutiny by this House, I hope that it will make speedy and substantial progress. But it will certainly not make its way through Parliament to allow the organisation of elections in June.
  The only way to provide for this— and bearing in mind the suggestions put forward by the Leader of the Opposition perhaps I should say that, although it is not the only way, I think it is probably the best way—is to have a Bill dealing solely with elections, which should come first. If this were not the right way, I should certainly look at the proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Such a Bill would need to pass all stages in both Houses by the end of the second week of May to permit the elections to be held by the end of June. I can undertake that such a Bill will be presented to the House very soon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] If this is done it will be essential—and I emphasise that word— that the main constitutional Bill, on which the whole procedures of the Assembly will depend, should have made substantial progress through the House by the time the elections are held, so that the basis on which the Assembly will work will be clearly understood by those concerned.
  There have been many suggestions that it would be wise to postpone the local government elections planned for 30th May on the ground that these elections will be fought not on local issues but on the substance of the White Paper. I must warn the House of the grave consequences of such a postponement. I do not regard the question of going back on my word as of any consequence. If it were right to do so, I should be prepared so to do. However, there are other grave and important consequences.
  If we hold the Assembly elections in June it would still be possible to proceed with the local government elections on 30th May. These elections have
  1560
  already been postponed several times and the truth must be faced that local government in Ireland is running down very fast. The district councils and the area boards must be made to work properly. My hon. Friends and myself have appointed members to these area boards but we now need on the boards those who are to be nominated by the district councils when elected. Until this happens none of these boards can work effectively.
  There was very widespread support in this House for the Macrory local government reforms when they were introduced. They have still not started to work in Northern Ireland because of the various postponements, and they cannot work until the elections are held. If the elections are not held on 30th May, the local councils cannot start in October. This would be a very serious postponement. I fear that if this were to happen there could be a considerable breakdown in local administration. I very much hope, therefore, that the House will accept that if the date for the Assembly elections is clearly fixed for the end of June, it would be reasonable to go forward with the local elections on the basis that these could be fought on local issues, bearing in mind that the Assembly elections would need to be on broader issues.
  If it is argued that there is only a short time between the two elections, it must be pointed out that in the rest of the United Kingdom this sort of period frequently occurs between local elections and General Elections.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the right hon. Gentleman not see his way clear to compromise on this important point? All parties, in spite of their differences, feel that the Assembly elections should come first. Would it not be possible to bring them forward a little in June and hold local government elections afterwards? After all, the people elected to local government in Northern Ireland will not take up office until October.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think I can respond to the hon. Member immediately because, with the discussions about early elections and with the need to consult people in Northern Ireland, as I have been doing this morning, it would be

  1561
  unreasonable for me to commit myself on all these matters before I had an opportunity to consult the people most closely concerned. But it would be a very serious matter to go back on the decision if it meant that the local councils were unable to start in October.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I take the point further? Of course the right hon. Gentleman had to announce these elections, but nobody would hold it against him if he said that they were not now to be held because at the time that he proposed the date, details of the Assembly elections and the White Paper were not known.
  Practically every party I can think of in Northern Ireland is in favour of delay. If it is a fact that the members of the new local government districts who achieve appointments to the area boards will not take office until October, would it still not meet the case to provide in the timetable for the Assembly elections to be held in June and for the local government elections to be held in September? In no sense would it upset the right hon. Gentleman's quite proper concern to get people elected for the local government areas.
  Mr. Whitelaw: It is not as simple as that, but of course, if the House desires me to do so, I will look into it. It is not as simple because, once the councillors are elected, they have to go through the whole business of appointing their staffs before they can take office in October. The local authority organisations would be gravely upset from a staff point of view if such a postponement were made. This cannot be an overriding difficulty, but it is something which the House should know. I have had very strong representations from the local government staffing organisations that further delay would be very serious indeed.
  One has to take all these matters into consideration, and I ask the House to take into consideration that the difficulties of running local government affairs have had very serious results. Whether it is impossible to have local government elections at the end of May on local issues when everyone knows that the Assembly elections will come in June, is something which I ask the House to consider very carefully, because I believe that it would
  1562
  be possible if one had definitely planned Assembly elections for June. One must obviously consider the views of the House, but I feel very strongly about this.
  I turn to the future position of the Secretary of State under the settlement, which is spelled out very clearly in paragraphs 48 to 50 of the White Paper. I do not wish to go into detail, but some anxieties have been expressed in Northern Ireland as to that position following the election of the Assembly and the formation of the Executive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) referred to colonial administration and so on.
  In drafting the White Paper and the legislation it is our clear purpose that, while the Secretary of State will have his very proper responsibilities in matters of security and law and order, while he will have proper responsibilities as representing Northern Ireland interests and be responsible to this House, and indeed in the United Kingdom Cabinet, nevertheless it would be fatally wrong if he were to become enmeshed in matters which had been transferred to the Executive and which were properly matters for the Executive in Northern Ireland.
  Of course he would have duties concerning discrimination and any impingement on subjects reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. With those two reservations, he should be able to leave to the Executive the job of carrying out its functions and not get in the way. If he gets in the way the whole system will not work. There will be a great responsibility on the Secretary of State to retreat from the position which inevitably I have occupied through the period of direct rule. I believe that to be very important. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland will accept it from me that that is the right way of proceeding.
  There has been some misapprehension about the taking of oaths in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) expressed anxiety lest a continuing requirement to take an oath after election might deter some people from standing for election to the Assembly.

  1563
  Paragraph 52 of the White Paper makes plain that
  "Members of the executive will be required to take an appropriate form of official oath."
  It says that the Assembly will be precluded in any of its measures from imposing on members of an appointed body the making of an oath or a declaration as a condition of appointment for employment, except where such an oath or declaration is required in comparable circumstances in the United Kingdom. It may not have been wholly clear—in which case let me make it clear now—that there is no intention of requiring the members of the Assembly as such to take an oath on taking their seats.
  As to the suggestion that there should be added representation of Northern Ireland at Westminster, I can add little to what was said yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). As he pointed out, the proposed constitutional settlement will provide Northern Ireland with unique institutions of its own, exercising extensive governmental powers and with a real measure of financial independence. It is just not possible to sustain for one moment the argument that in some way Northern Ireland is to have a lower status than other parts of the United Kingdom. Further, there is the possibility that in due course more powers will be devolved.
  If we were now to decide to increase the number of Members from Northern Ireland at Westminster, that would imply that there should be a limit to the extent of devolution. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford pointed out, it could suggest that for all time the powers of the new Assembly would be limited to what is in the White Paper and that nothing further would be devolved. I cannot think that that is right at this time, and it constitutes a powerful argument against added Westminster representation.
  Mr. McMaster: What about the matters reserved to the imperial Parliament? Is it not right that on such vital matters as taxation and foreign affairs representatives from Northern Ireland should have an equal voice with citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Whitelaw: It is clear that, quite contrary to the position in England,
  1564
  Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland, under these proposals, would have very extensive devolved legislative and administrative powers in the very important spheres of regional employment, education, health and agriculture which are not devolved to any other part of the United Kingdom in the same way. That makes a very powerful difference between the position of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  On the question of power sharing, the Leader of the Opposition referred to the possibility of separate negotiations. I have made it perfectly clear to all the parties—I think the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) knows this—that of course I am prepared to explain as best I can various points in the White Paper to the parties, but that I must also make perfectly clear that the limits, for example on power sharing, laid down in the White Paper within which the Secretary of State could devolve powers to an Executive and the limits within which an Executive could be formed, are absolutely clear and must be kept absolutely firm. There cannot be room for negotiation on these issues on which we are absolutely firm in the White Paper.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Would it not then be right to say that no leader of any party has any right to demand negotiation on his policies and to say that he can change the basis of the White Paper, as has been done by the Unionist Party?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I think all leaders of all the parties have an absolute right to say whatever they like.
  Perhaps that would be an appropriate moment to seek to end what I have to say because I know that a very large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I hope that I have dealt with the main trends in the debate. I have done so in some detail because that was necessary on some of the issues which were raised yesterday, such as the question of early elections.
  Perhaps I might leave the House with the thought which is uppermost in my mind after one year in Northern Ireland. It is something which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said to me when first I went there. It is that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland are both kind-hearted and generous. Like the rest of

  1565
  their fellow citizens in the United Kingdom, they wish only to live their lives in peace with their families. They are proud. They are determined. Quite rightly, they have no intention of being led in the long run by anyone who is, as they say, "from across the water". They want leaders of their own. They need them. They must have them.
  We in this House can provide Northern Ireland only with a framework. Only Ulstermen can make it work. Political leaders will have to exercise patience and understanding if they are to work together successfully. As I have learned to my cost in the past year, destructive criticism will always be the easiest course and constructive leadership the most difficult. But there can be no doubt that those leaders in Northern Ireland who make up their minds to work together for the benefit of their country can do it. I am optimistic enough to believe that they will. I know that the broad mass of the people in Northern Ireland want them to do so, and I am convinced that the proposals in the White Paper give them a real opportunity.
  5.2 p.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: First, let me congratulate the Secretary of State on having listened to some of the arguments advanced here yesterday and on having conceded to some of the views that we heard put forward. However, I hope that, on further reflection and having listened to further argument and debate in this House, especially when we consider the proposed legislation on the Floor of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way clear to granting the requests which have been made that the elections for the Assembly should take place before the local government elections. This is a matter of major importance. It is we, the elected representatives from Northern Ireland who will have to fight those elections. It is we who will have to go out into the constituencies explaining what is necessary in local government and explaining our various attitudes to the White Paper. If we are prepared to accept that responsibility in fighting the Assembly elections first, at least that concession should be made by the Secretary of State.
  In listening to the speeches which were made yesterday and will be made today
  1566
  putting forward various attitudes to the White Paper, I have had to ask myself one simple question: what is the alternative to the partial acceptance of this White Paper in trying to make it work, in trying to make it the basis for bringing real politics into play in Northern Ireland again? It was a very easy answer for me to give. It is an answer which I am certain will be given by the large majority of my constituents and others in Northern Ireland.
  The answer to the rejection of this White Paper either here or in Northern Ireland would be a continuation of the violence and bloodshed and the heartbreak and despair that we have had to suffer through the nightmare of these past four years in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that anyone with a spark of humanity and compassion, irrespective of his political ideals or political ambitions, could in any way say or do anything which would prolong this agony for one minute longer than necessary.
  Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) gave us a clear, cold analysis of what violence has meant and how it has been perpetuated in the streets of villages and towns in Northern Ireland. If I were the representative of an English, Scottish or Welsh constituency, I should find it very hard to understand in depth just what she was trying to tell the House. It is only by living in a situation where violence is present for 24 hours of the day that one can understand how terrible it is.
  I stand here today as the representative of West Belfast. I have seen the blood of Scottish, English and Welsh soldiers and of my own constituents on the New Lodge Road and on the Falls Road staining the streets of Northern Ireland. I should not like any other representative in this House to have to undergo that experience.
  A few weeks ago at seven o'clock in the morning my wife went in the dark to a newspaper shop in an adjoining street. On her way she walked through a pool of blood where a young boy had been assassinated within 50 yards of my own home. I have seen the killings brought about by people referred to here as terrorists but whom people in Northern Ireland refer to as patriots.

  1567
  In our approach to this problem to try to bring to an end to this awful violence, a great responsibility rests upon us in the attitudes that we adopt during this debate. I have never supported violence. I do not believe that violence has ever achieved or will ever achieve any political ends in Northern Ireland. I have made my position clear, and at some considerable political sacrifice. I do not support anyone in Northern Ireland who uses the bomb or the bullet to achieve political ends. In saying that, I am being honest. I would rather not be a Member of this House or of any other House—or, for that matter, of the new Assembly in Northern Ireland—if I felt obliged to attempt to solicit the support of anyone who had been using violence or who believed in the efficacy of violence to achieve political ends.
  Over the past two or three months, over the past two or three weeks especially, the Irish people themselves have been absolutely appalled and horrified at some of the most brutal and vicious crimes that have ever occurred throughout the whole troubled history of Ireland. In a conventional war such as that which this country had to fight between 1939 and 1945 against the Axis Powers, German planes could come over London and drop their bombs on enemy territory and British planes could do the same over Germany. At the Battle of El Alamein guns could open up on enemy fortresses and concentrations. But the people engaged in those actions did not know the individuals whom they were killing. A height of 30,000 feet separated the planes and their targets of Hamburg or London.
  The same is not true now in Ireland. The man who stands and fires a rifle at a young soldier taking children across a pedestrian crossing in the Ardoyne can go home that evening and listen to the soldier's name and address, marital status, the number of children he had and whether he was the son of a widowed mother. He can see it on television and read about it in the next morning's papers and know for the rest of his days that he was responsible for bringing that young soldier's life to an end. The man who places a bomb in Belfast will know to his dying day the names and addresses and the sexes of those whom he has killed. The people who carried out the
  1568
  ghastly murders referred to yesterday in the most compassionate terms by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster— the brutal and cowardly murders of the three soldiers last week—know the names and addresses, the marital status and the religions—they happened to be Catholic —of those whom they murdered so foully.
  There are many people in Ireland who are now beginning to question what has happened to the Irish people, and how, in bringing about the unity of Ireland in the name of patriotism, they can sink to commit such foul deeds. I am certain that there must be many within the ranks of the Provisional IRA who now, after witnessing such callous acts, will begin to ask where such action has brought them and when it will end.
  I cannot claim to echo the spokesmen of the Provisional IRA, but I can make an appeal. I ask it to desist from further actions of the type which have brought such misery to Northern Ireland. In making that request, I say to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), who is so fond of standing in this House time and time again and blaming the IRA for every death that occurs in Northern Ireland, that it is politically dishonest to adopt that sort of action that he takes. Many deaths have been brought about by the activities of those who claim to support the Unionist Party. We have to think only of the horrible assassinations that have taken place over the last few months by Unionist extremists. We have only to think that no later than this afternoon not only were guns found on a ship coming into Waterford but a vast quantity of arms was found in East Belfast which was to be used, no doubt, against the Catholic minority population in Northern Ireland.
  My condemnation of those using violence is a general condemnation. It is not specifically directed to the Provisional IRA or the Official IRA but to all of those who have been using arms and who have been trying to bring about their own political ambitions. It would be unfair of me if I did not say that the British Army has made some ghastly mistakes in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it was inevitable that in the situation that should happen. The Irish people will remember what happened on Bloody Sunday. The paratroopers who pulled the triggers of

  1569
  their rifles and SLR's in Derry on that Sunday know the names and addresses of the people who were killed. That is why both the British Army and the Northern Ireland people are becoming so brutalised. That is why it is necessary, if we are to bring about an end to the violence, that the White Paper must be given a chance.
  I do not accept everything which is in the White Paper. On reading it when it was first published, I received many disappointments. On the other hand, there are contained in it many of the proposals which were made by my hon. Friends in 1966, 1967 and 1968. Had they been implemented then, it may be that the violence which we now have in our society would not have arisen.
  The White Paper is a paper for discussion. It is an attempt to try to get the political representatives of the Northern Ireland people to discuss with each other what type of society they want. I regard it as no more and no less. The elected representatives will be at the Assembly having been elected by the franchise of the Northern Ireland people. I have no doubt that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will not like the type of representatives who are elected. However, they will have to accept them because they will have been elected by the voice of the Northern Ireland people. The onus will be on those representatives to agree on the points on which it is possible for them to reach agreement. It will be up to those representatives to try to make the Assembly work in the interests of the Northern Ireland people.
  I am rather suspicious—and the Secretary of State did not allay my suspicions this afternoon—about power sharing. I recognise that the White Paper makes it clear that the old Stormont, the Stor-mont of repression and oppression, has gone for ever. That one issue would make it impossible for me to vote against the White Paper. Things have changed in Northern Ireland and we shall never again have to live under such a jackboot régime.
  I should not like to think that the chairmen and members of the Executive will be given posts purely and simply because they are either Catholic or Protestant. That could only further institu-
  1570
  tionalise sectarianism in Northern Ireland. I want to see a form of Assembly, Government or Parliament, whatever it may be, in which there will be not only an Executive or a Government but an Opposition. If we are to try to create a new Assembly purely on the basis of sectarian attitudes—Catholics and Protestants—there will not be a real Opposition. The lack of a real Opposition is why we have had so much trouble in Northern Ireland. I want to see a real Opposition and a breakdown of sectarian politics. I want to see politics in Northern Ireland become what politics are here— namely a battle between Conservative and Labour Members, capitalism and socialism. I have no doubt that in the absence of a real Opposition I shall not be rushing into the Assembly asking for a chairmanship. I know what side I shall be on. I have always been on the side of the people.
  I have no doubt that there will be many people elected by the minority who will be prepared to engage in power sharing and who will be prepared to use their energies to try to bring about a better society in Northern Ireland.
  I welcome the Charter of Human Rights. It is a condemnation of all the Governments that have had office since 1920 and partition that in this year, 1973, we find it necessary to have to write into our legislation a charter of human rights. That is something which everyone in England, Scotland and Wales has had since the beginning of the century. But even when that charter is written into legislation, it will depend on the people who have been elected in Northern Ireland whether it can be made to be effective.
  The border poll which recently took place in Northern Ireland proved to many people, among other things, that there was a majority—the result was 591,000 against 6,000—who wanted the retention of the link with Britain. I should have thought that that would ease the opposition from Unionist spokesmen against the White Paper proposals. However, far from that, we have seen an unholy alliance between the most extreme sections of the Unionist Party. That is not because they are afraid of the constitutional position or of being swallowed up in the Republic overnight but because they are afraid of losing the power, status and

  1571
  privilege which they have had for so long.
  The Secretary of State will be under increasing attacks from the coalition of interests which has been formed in an attempt to restore the Protestant ascendancy class which has dominated and ruled Northern Ireland for so long and which has brought with it such disaster.
  Whilst I welcome the Charter of Human Rights, I feel that it will have to be spelt out much more clearly. It is stated in the White Paper that the Assembly when elected shall not be permitted to legislate in a discriminatory way. That sounds very well at face value. But it will be unnecessary to do so in the initial stages as there will still be the remnants of the old Stormont—for example, sections of the Special Powers Act and public order legislation which was deliberately promulgated and used by the Unionist Party against the minority. There will still be the Flags and Emblems Act. I had hoped that the Secretary of State would be able to tell the House that that Act no longer had any place on the Statute Book of any so-called democracy. If that Act is allowed to remain on the Statute Book the Government are saying to the Unionist majority that it can use its flag—the Union Jack.
  I know that in this country the Union Jack is not used as a party political symbol. It is in Northern Ireland. Symbols are important in Northern Ireland. If one section of the community is allowed to use a flag as its symbol, there is no reason why another section should be denied the same right. I would like to think that neither section would need to use flags as party political symbols, but that is not the reality of Northern Ireland.
  The vast majority of my hon. Friends have asked the Secretary of State to allow the Provisional IRA or the Official IRA to take part in the forthcoming elections to the Assembly and the local authorities. This is a direct challenge which the Secretary of State must accept. I have never supported the violence of the Provisional IRA, but if the right hon. Gentleman maintains a ban on its political operations it will feel entitled to say that it was refused the means of engaging in the democratic process. Although I do not
  1572
  agree with this, it will be said that that provided justification for carrying on the campaign of violence.
  During the run-up to the border poll, the Secretary of State repeatedly slated that the poll was necessary to discover what the people of Northern Ireland thought about the retention of the link. How much more valid is the same argument now in another direction? How much more important is it to take away all restrictions, obstacles and impediments from the path of all political parties so that we may know what the people of Northern Ireland think? We want to know who the people want as their elected representatives. If the Secretary of State can use that argument about the border poll, he can use it now.
  The Republicans will also have to face this challenge. If no restrictions were placed on them, they could engage in elections. They would have to accept the challenge. Then we would see how much support they had. If they refused to take part, we could say with a great deal of justification that they were unwilling to put their policies and programmes before the electors. There would be no more sympathy for them because it would be evident that they were trying to impose their will at the point of a gun. There is something to be gained by all those who believe in the democratic process. I believe that the Republicans would avail themselves of the opportunity to fight those elections. The Secretary of Slate must know that there have been Republicans in Ireland since 1798, since Wolf Tone. Whatever legislation may be promulgated here to prevent people from using their voices or influence, they will not go away overnight. They will have to be reckoned with in any solution that seeks to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
  The provisions relating to an Ombudsman are vague. I recognise that people in this country can put a great deal of faith in the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner. However, there is a different background in Northern Ireland. It seems that the powers of that office will have to be extended rapidly. We have found, in the working of the Commissioner in this country, that there have not been the powers to investigate complaints with the degree of competence thought necessary.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner in Northern Ireland are in many cases more extensive than those of the Parliamentary Commissioner here. One of the problems of Northern Ireland is that not many complaints are submitted. If people want to make the point that there is inadequate complaints machinery, perhaps they will do so, but I must point out that complaints are not being submitted.
  Mr. Fitt: I can quite understand that. It is like someone complaining to the Commissioner of the RUC about the activity of an individual policeman. I am glad that the Secretary of State is to set up an agency which will inquire into the "patterns of discrimination" as they have been labelled in Northern Ireland. It is hard to prove that a Catholic bus driver is less competent than a Protestant bus driver, but when one sees that out of 89 bus drivers employed by a local authority 84 are Protestants perhaps one begins to think that there might be a different structure with different tests.
  The Secretary of State said that he had a first-class relationship with the Commissioner of the RUC, Mr. Shillington. I am not particularly concerned about what sort of relationship the right hon. Gentleman has with the Commissioner. I am more concerned about the sort of relationship which exists between the Commissioner and the people of Northern Ireland. The Government should make it clear that there will be a complete reorganisation or restructuring of the RUC. We cannot hope to have peace while the RUC exists in its present form.
  I am not saying that every member of the RUC is a rogue, a rascal and a bigot. I know many members of the RUC who are decent men of integrity. What was said yesterday was that the incidents in which they were involved have brought about an atmosphere in which no one in the RUC can say. "I was not involved in those actions, therefore I am not to blame." The Government appointed Lord Hunt and Sir Arthur Young to look into the RUC. Lord Hunt made it clear that he was amazed and astounded that the RUC should have been allowed to operate in such a political manner over so many years.
  Sir Arthur Young did his damnedest to try to reform the RUC. We remember
  1574
  the infamous occasion when the RUC was proved beyond all possible doubt to have been engaged in an incident in Derry which led to the death of a man. After months of inquiry Sir Arthur Young issued his verdict. He said that he had found that there was a conspiracy of silence in the RUC aimed at protecting those involved. On 14th and 15th August in Belfast the RUC opened up with sub-machine guns and Brownings. On that occasion a young boy died in my constituency. There have been other major incidents in which the RUC have been involved. It is this which has led the minority population in Northern Ireland to refuse to accept the RUC as at present constituted.
  I recognise that hon. Members opposite representing the Unionist cause say that whether the minority likes it or not, it will have the RUC. They say that they will force us to have it. They want, and think they can have, total victory. That is not so. Before any legislation is introduced I ask the Secretary of State to examine carefully what he plans to do with the police force in Northern Ireland.
  So far as the economic position is concerned, most of my hon. Friends on this side have said that they had hoped that the Government would be more explicit over this most important issue. I recognise that the Government could not have set up the Council of Ireland overnight. I hope that, with the recommendation in the White Paper, this item will be treated with the urgency which it deserves. If a Council of Ireland is created I have no doubt that representatives from the North and South will be able to sit down together. There will be many areas of disagreement but we are not two races: we are all Irishmen living in that island.
  If I were to be a member of this Council of Ireland, with my colleagues, I would probably have much more in common with other people who were representatives from the Republic. But we would all be there under the one banner that we were all Irishmen. That could only be for the good of Northern Ireland.
  I have welcomed the civil rights and social justice legislation proposed in this White Paper. The Government have attempted to resolve some of the terrible differences which are endemic to Northern Ireland's society and to the relationship

  1575
  between these islands. But I cannot support the White Paper, because it still contains—no matter how much the Secretary of State may apologise for it—provisions for internment and detention without trial. The White Paper retains some of the worst aspects of Northern Ireland legislation. It retains certain sections of the Special Powers Act and the Flags and Emblems Act. Until we are confident that we can repeal these powers, take steps to cast them into the wastepaper basket of Irish history, we can never hope to bring about a stable society in Northern Ireland.
  The Minister of State referred last night to aid. I do not think that the economic aspects affecting Northern Ireland have been given the priority they deserve. The Minister of State will know that, in Northern Ireland, particularly in the minority ghetto areas where there has been high unemployment and bad housing, there is a great need for industrial development. In my constituency of West Belfast there are acres and acres of land available for industrial building. I do not think that the Secretary of State, or those who assist him in relation to Northern Ireland, can afford to maintain a doctrinaire Tory approach to economic development in the Province. Northern Ireland needs the sort of services which should not be hemmed in or guaranteed by the outlooks which prevail on this side of the Irish Sea.
  Summing up my approach, I cannot support this White Paper because of its provisions relating to internment and detention. But I can support the fact that it goes a considerable way towards meeting the arguments which have been put forward from this side of the House since 1966 in relation to bringing about a society in which social justice is readily available to all the people. In those circumstances I intend to abstain from voting tonight.
  I hope to have the opportunity to put down amendments when the proposed legislation comes before the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) said yesterday, this is another stage in the legislation and the development which is taking place between these two islands. This is not the end of the story but I sincerely
  1576
  hope that it will provide a basis to make politics work in Northern Ireland.
  Finally, I would appeal to all those engaging in violence to Northern Ireland to desist forthwith.
  5.35 p.m.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: I beg to move the amendment, in my name, in line 2, at end add:
  "but regrets that the White Paper does not provide for adequate Parliamentary representation for the people of Northern Ireland".
  I would first of all endorse what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said about the need for eschewing violence in anything we do. It is good to have it on record from both sides of the political fence that we do not believe violent methods are the right methods to use to achieve any political end.
  It would be easy to think of this occasion as another landmark or as another critical stage in the story of the troubles of Ulster over the last three-and-a-half years. It is not, in fact, so critical as some of the things through which we have been and some of the occasions we have had to face. The next real critical day will come when the Assembly is elected.
  The first day after the electoral battles have been fought and the people meet will be the moment when leadership will be needed and the moment of real critical decision. We are not in a critical situation at present because what we do in this House today is a foregone conclusion. The two major parties in the House are agreed on the matter and probably have behind them the great weight of public opinion in Britain.
  It is important that it should be understood, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) said, that the issue should not be fudged and that the aims of the White Paper should be clearly understood. It was interesting to hear both the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointing out that the purpose of election to the Assembly is not to negotiate a form of constitution that will take effect thereafter, but rather to work within the framework laid down in the legislation which it is proposed to put before the House in the constitutional Bill. It is important that this should be clearly

  1577
  understood by everyone in Ulster. It would not be honest for anyone to pretend otherwise.
  On the eve of the publication of the White Paper—or rather, on the morrow of the referendum—I was impressed that the return to political activity had greatly improved the morale of the Ulster people. The activity leading up to the referendum and the result of the referendum, improved the morale of the Loyalists. I use the word "Loyalist" simply in this sense. I do not use the word "Unionist" because it implies a party label. Nor do I use the word "Protestant" because it is sectarian and implies that there are no Catholic Loyalists. There is a substantial part of the Catholic community which is Loyalist, just as there are also members of the Protestant community who are disloyal. Let us be plain about that.
  There was a distinct rise in the morale of the Loyalist community during the referendum. This was for two reasons— first, political activity and second, united political activity.
  I had a great concern to see that, if possible, we who represented Northern Ireland in this House could speak with a united voice behind us. Accordingly, I took to various methods of consultation, some more successful than others. The result of this, marrying together the blueprint of my party and what others had said to me, was to determine that there were at least four principles that I could discern to which the majority community in Ulster adhered.
  First, they wanted to see in the White Paper a very clear undertaking that the defeat of the IRA was the first priority. That is plain in the White Paper and that undertaking, I concede, my right hon. Friend has met.
  Secondly, they wanted it made plain that the proposals within the Irish dimension, for the Council of Ireland, would be based very firmly upon the need for recognition of the constitutional position and upon consent. In the White Paper that again—though, one might argue, with qualification—has certainly been met.
  They wanted also the ultimate control over internal security to be based in Ulster and to be the responsibility of Ulstermen.
  1578
  Some of my hon. Friends may deal with that matter. I do not propose to do so at this stage.
  But one thing was plain. Whether the Ulster people disagreed about whether they wanted full integration with full parliamentary representation in this House or a devolved Parliament of their own with very meaningful devolved powers, they did not want something which fell between the two.
  In the debate on the Green Paper, i had already made this very point. I said:
  "There are really two broad propositions within the Union. The first is that one should see a Parliament and Government in Northern Ireland with powers which are broadly commensurate to those which the old Parliament and Government had, perhaps reformed as to membership and franchise … The other one is full integration, along the lines advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his party, with more Members here at Westminster from Northern Ireland and a local Assembly … Either of those two propositions would be acceptable to the broad majority of the people of Northern Ireland … What would not be acceptable is a solution which is neither one nor the other. That would be a denial of democracy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1972; Vol. 846, c. 73.]
  The major defect in the White Paper is that it precisely falls between the two. I propose to argue the case a little further.
  Perhaps it might help the House if we look back at 1920. In 1920 this House, prior to the passage of the Act of 1920, had 105 Irish Members. I can see by the smile on the face of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that he recognises the immense relief which the House felt when that number was drastically reduced, as it was by the Act of 1920. But what one must remember is the context then. In 1920 we were setting up two Parliaments, one in the North and one in the South. It was envisaged that both those Parliaments would have a very large measure of self-government and a good deal of financial self-government as well.
  The Parliament in the South did not come into being. Had it done so, it was proposed that there would be 33 Members from Southern Ireland, and there were to be 13 from Northern Ireland. The removal of the university seat reduced the Northern Ireland membership to 12. That continued to be justified on the grounds of the extent of the devolutionary powers.

  1579
  The great change took place from about the end of the war onwards, when the control of the Treasury began to become stronger and stronger, because of the extent of Government expenditure. The vast increases in Government expenditure, the erection of the Welfare State, social services, the subsidy systems, all the regional development systems, and the general acceptance of the principle of parity in the social services and the linking of the re-insurance funds brought about a position in which, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) quite rightly described yesterday, in effect, Stormont devolution in financial respects was illusory. That is quite true. I concede that to the hon. Member.
  The tragedy was that with that diminution of the devolutionary power, we did not proportionately increase the Northern Ireland membership in this House from about 1948 onwards. It ought to have been done then. There was no argument left for the placing of Northern Ireland in an inferior position in respect of representation in this House.
  What we now want to look at is the question whether these proposals make any difference to that position.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that at the time of which he is talking, of the old Stormont before it was prorogued and before the Speaker's Rules were changed in this House, Ulster Members had the best of all worlds? They had a Parliament of their own. We could not raise questions there. Ulster Members could come here and talk on any subject, ranging from a Manchester Corporation-sponsored Private Member's Bill to foreign affairs. There was a gross imbalance in the situation.
  Captain Orr: The situation was simply this: Ulster was taxed in precisely the same way as the hon. Gentleman's constituents were taxed, but Ulster was under-represented in having its say in that taxation or in control over how the money was spent, because expenditure of the money was in the control of the Treasury. That is the fundamental of the argument.
  1580
  We want now to look at whether these proposals produce a greater measure of devolution. My right hon. Friend has suggested that they do. I would concede to him that if the devolution goes as he hopes that it will go, if it goes to the full extent one will get greater financial freedom within what one might call the block grant which Stormont will be allotted. In that sense there is a greater measure of devolution, but in another sense there is less. First, the block grant is to be decided now not according to certain rules, which it used to be decided upon by the Joint Exchequer Board. The block grant is now to be determined by the Secretary of State in his bargaining power in the Cabinet. The control over the Secretary of State is control here in this House. Once again, the control over expenditure is here, as the control over taxation is in this House.
  Secondly, the extent of the financial freedom and the determining of financial priorities in Ulster is still in the hands of persons appointed not by the Assembly but by the Secretary of State. The effective power in every sense remains at Westminster.
  Therefore, on grounds of equity Northern Ireland should be fairly represented in this House. We can decide according to several considerations what that representation should be. On the Scottish pattern it would mean 20 extra Members. On the United Kingdom basis it would mean 18. On the English pattern we would require four extra Members for Northern Ireland. This House has asked the leaders and people of Northern Ireland to make concessions and compromises, but the House is not itself prepared to make concessions on this point.
  In using the term "parliamentary representation" in my amendment I mean, first, representation in this House or, failing that, a form of devolution which is meaningful. The White Paper does not provide for meaningful devolution because it is based primarily on an illusion. I concede to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—and I have rarely had as much personal courtesy from anybody in Government as I have had from my right hon. Friend—and the Government that they sincerely believe that this is a reasonable document which should be accepted by reasonable men.

  1581
  That is the view of the hon. Member for Leeds, South and I believe that he is sincere.
  I am also willing to concede that the country at large probably regards the White Paper as a reasonable document which should be accepted by reasonable men. But it is a document which is defective because it is built primarily on an illusion. The illusion is that one can hold elections to an Assembly which the parties will fight on various grounds and with various differences between them and that they will then meet in this Assembly and agree to form an Executive to which power can be devolved. To me that simply does not make sense and is an absurdity. I only wish that it did make sense.
  I willingly accept the appeal which was made by the Secretary of State today. If Parliament passes legislation on this White Paper, then that legislation will become the law of the land. I would never be a party to breaking the law of the land. I want to see people operating within the law of the land and I would not countenance any other attitude. But the House should not enact nonsense. People of good will will try to work the legislation should it become law.
  I believe that we should have elections as soon as possible. I agree with the Opposition that we should proceed to the elections as fast as we possibly can so that we shall know the view of the Ulster people. I dislike playing the part of Cassandra. I am getting very tired of it and it sounds unconstructive and unreasonable. I believe that if these proposals do not work, the failure will lie not at the door of the people of Ulster— because the people of Ulster are reasonable people and I believe that there is more good will on both sides of the fence in Ulster than anybody imagines; the proposals will fail because they have within themselves the seeds of their own failure.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that if the proposals fail, they will fail because they contain the seeds of their own destruction. That may be true, but it is also true that if they succeed they will do so because they will provide the first real chance since the establishment of
  1582
  the Northern Ireland State for people to try to make the system work. The six counties, from their origin, were unstable in the way in which they were chosen and in the philosophy which imbued their establishment. The setting up of the Stor-mont Parliament was unstable. The surprising thing is not that the crisis came in 1969–70 but that it did not come earlier. Reasons, explanations and excuses can be advanced about why the crisis did not come earlier, but the surprising thing is that it did not come earlier.
  Mr. John E. Maginnis: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the setting up of Stormont was not done by the people in Northern Ireland but by people in this House and that the mistake was made here? Let us not kid ourselves about this. The people of Northern Ireland did not want a separate Parliament, fought hard against it and accepted it only as a compromise.
  Mr. McNamara: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. However, this is surely a dangerous argument for the hon. Gentleman to advance, particularly when he and his hon. Friends have argued so long about democracy in the Six Counties. If there had been democracy in the 32 counties, the Stormont Parliament would not have existed. If, way back in 1912, the Unionists had not resorted to the force of arms and the threat of force in defiance of the sovereign Parliament of Westminster—a Parliament in which they are now asking for increased representation—we should not now be hearing this sorry story. I am sorry to say that but the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) raised the matter. I thought I should reply to him. However, I want to try to look for hopeful things contained in the White Paper.
  One reason why I cannot support the amendment lies in its application to taxation and representation. If we were to accept the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, we in Westminster should have greater representation if the matter were to be looked at purely in terms of taxation because we raise a greater sum for the national Exchequer than do the people of Northern Ireland per capita. Therefore, we should be entitled to ask for further representation. However, I do not put this forward as an argument.

  1583
  Furthermore, I do not accept the case for increased representation for another reason. In the past although Ulster Unionist Members have been able to ask questions about the number of houses in my constituency, I have not been able to ask questions about Northern Ireland housing matters because of devolution of power. One interesting argument that will arise from the provisions of the White Paper deals with the extent to which we shall be able to ask questions about the use of devolved powers once they are granted to the Assembly.
  My hon. Friends have spoken about the need for early Assembly elections. It seems to me that the argument advanced from the Conservative Front Benches about the reason the White Paper could not come before the border poll is exactly the reason why we should have the Assembly elections before the local government elections, despite all the difficulties. We were told that the border poll would settle one particular issue and that we need not have the White Paper beforehand to cloud the issue. Now we have the White Paper it is bound to cloud the issue for local government elections.
  We must therefore urge the Government very seriously, despite all the arguments which have been deployed, to make sure that we have the Assembly elections before the local government elections. This is the point which nearly everybody in the House is prepared to accept, with the exception at the moment, as I understand it, of the Government, who can see the administrative problems. I realise that they are there, but in this case I think the Government will have to think again. After all, we have been waiting three years for Macrory. Another three months will not make much difference if it means having satisfactory elections.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I undertake to look into it, but I hope he will understand the tremendously strong feelings of all the staff associations concerned, which feel very bitterly and deeply about this.
  Mr. McNamara: I accept that from the right hon. Gentleman. I had said just before he came into the Chamber that I understood all of the administra-
  1584
  tive problems and difficulties involved. Nevertheless, I hope he will try to do what he can.
  I want to talk briefly about the Flags and Emblems Act, because I am not exactly sure what is the situation. I originally tabled a Question for answer last Friday to the Secretary of State and I did not get an answer until late yesterday afternoon. I put to the Prime Minister yesterday what were the Government's intentions about the Flags and Emblems Act and was given the reply,
  "Perhaps we can wait until the legislation comes before the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1322.]
  But the answer I received from the Minister of State that day was,
  "There are no plans at present to repeal this Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 357.]
  Does that mean that we are to wait for the legislation, when the Act will be repealed, or that I must wait for the legislation to try to get the Act repealed? This is of considerable importance because we are dealing, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, with questions of symbols, and the Flags and Emblems Act is a particular symbol of discrimination and is regarded as such by people in Northern Ireland who are republican.
  I do not feel, as many people do, that it is a weakness of the White Paper that part of the problem of power sharing and the rÔle of the Executive is vague. To me it is one of its strongest points that the Secretary of State is saying to people in Northern Ireland, "Come together and try to work it out yourselves. Come together and settle your own procedures. Come together and try to work out your solution to the problems in Northern Ireland." Far from being a weakness, this, I feel, is a strength because it is putting responsibility, once the elections have taken place, upon the people who will have to try to work the system.
  I urge again that when we have the elections the representatives of the extremists groups should be allowed to stand for election, and that the proscriptions contained in the Special Powers Act should go, because if they go the extremists, wherever they come from, will not be able to say that they have not had an opportunity to use the ballot box and therefore have had to have recourse to

  1585
  the bullet. If the fear is that these extremists have the support of elements in the population strong enough to give them representation, at least we shall be aware of the degree of strength they have and will have a better idea of the nature of the problem.
  While we do not know their exact strength—to what extent they have popular support, to what extent their support rests upon fear and intimidation, and to what extent some of them are just gun-happy hooligans—we are working in a complete void. It is better that they be allowed to stand and be beaten resoundingly, I hope, at the polls; or, if they get representation, that we should know it Far better that than that we give them an excuse to say that they were never considered, or allowed to have their say. If that were so there would always be people who would say that perhaps we drew our parameters of democracy too narrowly; that they were denied the right to have their say in a democratic manner; that they had been frustrated and pushed back. We must ensure that that does not happen. Then the majority of the people in Northern Ireland, to whichever community they belong, will be able to say that the extremists had had their chance and were either accepted or re-ected. Do not, for God's sake, give them the chance to say that they never had a chance of acceptance or rejection.
  I turn to those parts of the White Paper which I regard as being particularly weak, not in a destructive sense, because there is so much in the White Paper with which I agree—so very much for which I have asked and urged, when my party was in Government and now, in opposition—that it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that there is a lot in it which I like. If I turn to the weaknesses I trust that the House and the Secretary of State will understand that my reasons for doing so are that these are weaknesses that I fear could make the proposals fail, and I do not want them to fail.
  The first and major respect in which the White Paper fails is the question of the police and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Paragraph 70, dealing with the police, makes a valiant but weak attempt to recognise that there really is a problem of the acceptability of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in many parts of Northern Ireland. That it is seen as a sectarian
  1586
  force, a force of bigots, the armed extension of a political organisation, by people in Northern Ireland is not in any way to denigrate the heroism and gallantry which many policemen have shown in this tremendously troubled period. It is only to state a fact—that it is regarded in that way.
  It is because the White Paper fails to tackle this problem that I have a real doubt about its success. If we consider the history of the past three or four years we see that it was with the police that the troubles started; there was a feeling that they were acting partially against civil rights marchers; a feeling that they were facing only one side when trying to separate riot mobs; an overall feeling that they were being used purely and simply as an extension of the arm of the Unionist Party. To achieve acceptability of the RUC by the whole of the community in Northern Ireland is not going to be just a major task; it will be a well-nigh impossible task.
  Therefore hon. Members must cast around in their minds for the best method of trying to establish a police force acceptable in all the areas of Northern Ireland. I think that the only way in which that can be achieved is by not just a radical reorganisation of the force but a reorganisation based upon getting away completely from the heavily centralised organisation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  The White Paper talks about the equivalent of local watch committees— local authority organisations—trying to come into a relationship with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is attempting to deal with the problem, but I do not think it goes to the root of the matter. There must be local police forces, and a complete acceptance of the police force by all the people. That can be achieved only if we get away from the present organisation and structure of the police.
  It is regrettable that the events which have taken place in Northern Ireland since the Hunt Committee reported have made it appear that the reforms which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) sought to introduce have gone by the board. But he tried. We must completely reorganise the police force, so that there is a feeling in Northern Ireland that the

  1587
  police are a body which will protect the ordinary law-abiding citizen of whatever community in whatever circumstances.
  Mr. Maginnis: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that when Stormont was established one-third of the places in the Royal Ulster Constabulary were left open for the Roman Catholic community? Is he now suggesting that we should have a sectarian division in the constabulary, with a Protestant police force for the Protestant community and a Roman Catholic police force for the Roman Catholic community?
  Mr. McNamara: On the eve of the dis-bandment of the Northern Ireland Privy Council, I thank the hon. Member for casually throwing me a title to which I am not entitled.
  Perhaps the biggest mistake made was to say that one-third of the strength of the police of the Royal Ulster Constabulary would be reserved for Roman Catholics—in other words, that there would be statutory Catholics in the force. I am certainly not suggesting two police forces in parallel—one for the "Prods" and the other for the "Tagues". I am asking for community police forces based on the older kind of police forces which we had in Great Britain before the massive reorganisation. It would mean local police forces.
  I turn now to the Diplock recommendations and the Charter of Human Rights. It seems strange that at a time when the White Paper quite properly makes great play of the Charter of Human Rights the first piece of legislation we are to have is a derogation from those same human rights. It is a cockeyed way of proceeding. It is most regrettable that the House has never debated the Diplock recommendations.
  Our freedom depends not only on the establishment by law of the facts but on the way in which those facts are arrived at. One of the greatest defences of our freedom is the procedures by which the facts are arrived at. The moment we weaken those procedures we weaken our liberties. Diplock proposes just that. He introduces some strange arguments and ideas.
  1588
  For example, there is the new legal concept of inculpatory admission— presumably, Lord Diplock means confession, but did not want to use that word in case it had sectarian overtones. We find that inculpatory admissions which are short of torture or of inhuman or degrading treatment are to be accepted. But how short does one have to fall in order for such a confession to be accepted? It is a vague sort of phrase. There is no definition. Again, what are the minimum standards? Is a confession to be allowed if it is obtained by inducement, by threat of violence, by solitary confinement, by reduced diet, or by psychological techniques which fall short of torture but involve the threat of physical violence? The onus of proof on the balance of probabilities is to be placed on the accused, not on the Crown.
  These are all very serious defects. We are to retain internment without really examining the reason for having it, or considering the resentments caused by it. It was introduced on a discriminatory basis, even though, as we have learned today, there are statutory Protestants inside. The operation when originally introduced went far beyond what was needed. Because of that, it was sordid, full of errors and inefficient. It was counter-productive. It had a terrible effect on the minority and has made Long Kesh a training ground for guerrilla graduates. When it was introduced, there was no proper attempt to set up special procedures for the hearing of grievances on behalf of those wrongfully arrested. The conditions of Long Kesh still leave a lot to be desired.
  These are problems we have to deal with. I do not deny that in the long run there may, regrettably, be occasions when people have to be interned without trial, but is it right to weaken the criminal law in Northern Ireland to such an extent as has been proposed in Diplock? Is it right that the courts should be brought into even more disrepute, particularly after we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the figures for the great number of convictions in the courts in Belfast in cases heard before juries? Diplock is very much at odds with the White Paper. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—that before the Diplock

  1589
  recommendations are introduced the Charter of Human Rights should be introduced to see at least what we are having derogation from.
  There is a lot in the White Paper that I can support and have supported. I will not vote against it, although there are parts of it that I find not entirely satisfactory. I would certainly vote to have it rather than see it rejected by the House, and I would certainly vote against the amendment by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Before I sit down, I will traverse some of the ground covered by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in the earlier part of his speech, but I want to refer first to the amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). In any context except that of Northern Ireland, it would seem incredible that such an amendment should need to be moved. We are, after all, in this White Paper proposing to establish an Assembly which, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Minister of State last night, will have approximately the same power of taxation as a local authority in Great Britain, and of which the power of supply, as we call it in this House, will be severely circumscribed—an Assembly of which, at any rate initially and foreseeably, the sphere of operation will be essentially the sphere of local government, though admittedly it will have subordinate powers of legislation not identical with those which can be sought by local authorities in this country.
  In any situation other than this, the affront to the principle of representation on which this House itself is founded and constituted would be thought to be almost impossible. My hon. and gallant Friend would surely not have needed to speak or to move an amendment in order to establish that in such circumstances, our fellow citizens resident in the six counties of Northern Ireland were entitled to at any rate the same scale of representation in this House as any of their fellows on this side of the Irish Sea.
  What then are the reasons given for so striking a deviation from the principle upon which this House itself is founded?
  1590
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relied very largely upon the prospects for the future. He said he was anxious if parliamentary representation for Northern Ireland were increased, that this might be an obstacle to the subsequent enlargement, which he desired, of the powers of Ulster Assembly. If that is the best case that can be made, it is a very weak one indeed. There is no obvious difficulty, if and when further devolution takes place, about bringing in at the same time the corresponding adjustment—namely, that since greater authority would be given to the Assembly there, a less extensive representation would be required in this House. After all, if the two things—the status of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the representation of Northern Ireland in this House—belong together, as they clearly do, then, if the one is adjusted, so can the other be adjusted. We have certainly learned in this House in the last two or three years that there is nothing entrenched about the legislation governing Northern Ireland. What is done can afterwards be very quickly undone.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: If I may take up that point, I happen to agree with the White Paper on this but if it were the case that the Government of the day— if I can put it in that hypothetical way— wished to alter the representation of any part of the United Kingdom, is not it understood at least that no alteration should be made in the representation in this House at least until after the election after next? Then there is the 10- to 15-year rule, under the Act of 1956, at the very least, even on the fortuity which the hon. Gentleman brought up from the Front Bench. Should not there therefore be no change until 1979?
  Mr. Powell: I am aware of these rules which govern our procedures in adjusting the parliamentary representation in this House, particularly the parliamentary representation of Great Britain. But I say again: I simply cannot believe that, if there was to be a substantial constitutional change again, endowing the new Assembly with a large range of powers which would make unjustified the full representation of the residents of Northern Ireland here, it would be thought unreasonable or impracticable to adjust that representation accordingly. I would have thought the very legislation envisaged in

  1591
  this White Paper, which makes profound constitutional changes in Northern Ireland at the very shortest notice, was evidence enough of that.
  I want to come to what seems to me the much more significant and instructive reason that was given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He said that such a change, such an adjustment, would be
  "wholly unacceptable to a substantial element in the population".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1326.]
  of Northern Ireland. I want to ask: what is this substantial element in the population to which the full parliamentary representation of the people of Northern Ireland would be wholly unacceptable? Of course, I can understand that many people in Northern Ireland have taken no particular interest—they have learned not to do so over the past 50 years—in the proceedings in this House until recently or in their representation here. I could understand therefore if they did not attach prime importance to an improvement in their representation here. What I cannot believe is that any element in the population of Northern Ireland, which wishes to see the Six Counties remain as part of the United Kingdom, or even willingly envisages that they should so remain for the foreseeable future, would have any objection at all to an improvement of the representation of that part of the Kingdom in this Parliament.
  So what lies behind the stubborn refusal of the Government to do what, on the face of it, is manifestly fair, that is, to accord at least parity of parliamentary representation to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland? There is here something very familiar and very significant. It is the desire to have things both ways at once, the desire to support incompatible opposites. It is the refusal to face, to admit and to act upon the fundamental reality of the politics of Northern Ireland, which is that there are two nations which contend for a single territory.
  All the politics of Northern Ireland goes back to this fundamental division and clash: to which nation, to which state, is Northern Ireland to belong? The ambiguity, which we already trace in the matter raised by my hon. and gallant Friend's amendment, saturates the White Paper which is before the House. I want
  1592
  to come to it straight away, and to what the Government themselves say is the central issue in it, the point, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely clear and absolutely fixed—as he repeated in reply to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the central element in this package is power sharing. The proposition is in paragraph 52:
  "… it is the view of the Government that the Executive itself can no longer be solely based upon any single party, if that party draws its support and its elected representation virtually entirely from only one section of a divided community".
  Here is a proposition and a principle totally adverse to any conception of parliamentary or representative government with which we are familiar—the doctrine that in circumstances to be defined by another authority the majority, however large and however clear, shall not exercise the executive power. Since this is the centrepiece, we are bound to ask: what is the intention, what is the thought, behind an innovation so surprising and so paradoxical?
  What is the nature of the minority with whom power is to be compulsorily shared by those who have been elected by a majority of their fellow citizens? Is it a minority which differs on domestic policy, which has stood on a different programme for health, welfare, industrial development, the social services? Well then, I say, not even a parish council could be conducted on the principle that after an election had been held on a series of different programmes, the execution and administration should be carried on not by those who had the majority but by some kind of coalition combining those who had been elected on not merely different but presumably opposing programmes.
  Clearly, that cannot be. That, of course, is not the thought behind this striking central element in the proposals. The minority which the Government have in mind is not a minority which is committed for the foreseeable future to the administration of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom but a minority which is opposed to that—not necessarily opposed in any unlawful way, rather no doubt eschewing unlawful methods, but still a minority whose political object and whole political life is bound up with the intention that

  1593
  Northern Ireland shall not be administered as part of the United Kingdom but in some other way, as part of some other state.
  So we have here a contradiction—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South called it an absurdity, and such a contradiction is an absurdity— built into the proposals and made the centrepiece of them. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) at the end of a speech yesterday afternoon which contained what, if I may say so, was a brilliant dissection of this centre piece of the White Paper—I thought she exposed its inconsistencies and contradictions in a devastating way; [Laughter]—logic is the same, whatever intentions may be —found at the end of her speech a remarkably apt expression for what the Government are doing, a remarkably telling description of the future before us. She spoke of the Government being
  "prepared to waffle their way on until terrorism succeeds in separating"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1973; Vol 853, c 1385.]
  Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom.
  There is the danger. There is the necessity for this centre piece of the proposals before the House to be brought out into the open, to be analysed and to be seen for the contradiction that it is; for in those words of the hon. Lady is expressed both the hope and the fear which the White Paper and the intent to implement it will create. There is the hope on the part of those who would wish Northern Ireland to be detached from the United Kingdom: here, they hope, is a yet further advance towards what they have in mind; here is a United Kingdom administration which is determined to oblige the majority in Northern Ireland to govern in combination with those whose objects are incompatible with their own. There is the corresponding fear on the part of the majority: somehow, they fear, after years of ambiguity and obscurity, of contradictory policies and double meanings—in short, of waffle —they will find that what they thought to be firmly held in the grasp of the majority has somehow been filched and taken from them.
  I understand the temptations and the pressures under which hon. Members speak and vote in this debate. After
  1594
  weary years—weariness on this side of the Irish Sea, but weariness how much greater elsewhere!—how strong is the temptation, whatever may be the proposal which comes before us, to give it a trial. The concluding words—though HANSARD did not catch them—of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) yesterday were "Give it a try". Let us give it a try, say hon. Members, and see if it will work. But we are not sent here to give things a try, to see if they will work. We are sent here to apply our judgment before the event. We are sent here to judge between what is likely to work and what is not likely to work, between what is absurd and what is rational. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says "Rubbish". Evidently he thinks he has been sent here to sign on the dotted line. If so, others or not. We are sent here to avoid, if possible, misfortune coming upon our fellow citizens by taking thought in advance, however difficult or unpopular it may be.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: My right hon. Friend referred to my speech. Does he appreciate that many of us believe that any course has great perils, and that many of us believe sincerely that these proposals have the best chance of operating? That is why I say, "Give them a try and let us see whether we can make them work".
  Mr. Powell: I do not for a moment doubt—I could not imagine otherwise— that my hon. Friend has applied his mind as intensely as any other hon. Member to this very question, to search out what the future chances are. That I do not for a moment doubt; but I am saying that it is a washing of the hands and an abdication of responsibility for any hon. Member who is not satisfied of the practicability and the reasonable probability of these measures working to go with the crowd who will be forcing their way in hundreds through the entrances to the Aye Lobby tonight, murmuring as they do so, "Let us give it a try".
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in the most solemn part of a solemn speech, reminded us that every Member of the House bears a separate and personal responsibility not only for what has happened but for what

  1595
  is going to happen in Northern Ireland. Those who vote for this White Paper, either because they have not analysed and understood the contradiction at the heart of it, or because they say to themselves "Maybe we shall get by for another year or two in this way", are betraying the trust with which they were sent here and will bear the guilt of what will follow.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I have no qualifications whatever to speak in an Irish debate except 18 months' intensive study of a phenomenon which is sweeping through the Western world and will loom ever larger in our political debates in future, namely, the increasing breakdown and ungovernability of Western States.
  We have seen this phenomenon in an extreme form in the Province of Ulster. It is because I have been brooding on this problem for 18 months, projecting present tendencies into the future, scaring myself literally white in the process, that I thought it necessary that an English ignoramous representing an English constituency should say a few words in this debate.
  First, I assure the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that when I go into the Lobby tonight, as I intend to, it will be with no sense of elation, and it will not mean that my present respect and admiration for the Secretary of State has transformed itself into a total enthusiasm for his political ideas or his White Paper.
  I am rarely presented in this House with a choice between good and evil— between black and white. Almost invariably I have to choose between two unsatisfactory courses of action on the basis of my own judgment. My contacts with the Whips Office are so tenuous and spasmodic that I receive little guidance on which is the least unsatisfactory course of action to adopt, and it is in that spirit that I intend to go into the Lobby tonight to vote for the least unsatisfactory course.
  Having said that, I want to say in addition, in a speech that will itself be shot through with paradox, that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this White Paper is also shot through with paradox
  1596
  and contradiction. If this were presented as a constitutional document, to be accepted or rejected on its own constitutional merits, I could not possibly accept it, and certainly would not vote for it.
  This is an abnormal document—if I may use that adjective—to deal with a totally abnormal situation, which has been with us not for just four years but for as long as I have been alive. It was three days after I made my entry into this world that the Anglo-Irish Treaty was accepted in Dublin. One month later the then Parliament of Northern Ireland contracted out and the whole of this turbulent and tragic history began.
  The history itself is full of paradox. It is an astonishing thing that in Northern Ireland, the Province with which we associate many forms of violence, the community happens to be rather more law-abiding than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The statistics for 1963–67 for crimes against the person show that the figure for Northern Ireland was the lowest in Western Europe. The number of violent deaths—other than those occasioned by terrorist action—is half as many as in the United Kingdom as a whole, and in the United States of America there are 18 times as many. One set of statistics shows that the Northern Irish community is relatively peaceful and law-abiding. Why is there this violent explosion of lawlessness?
  Here again, with infinite regret, I must go three-quarters of the distance with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I do not accept the thesis that there are two nations in Northern Ireland—a thesis, incidentally, first presented in The Times in, I think, 1912, by a Mr. Moneypenny. We are accustomed to theories and bizarre ideas in the columns of that journal. I do not accept that there are two nations, but there are two nations potentially; the two communities in Northern Ireland are evolving to nationhood.
  Mr. Powell: For correctness, I said that two nations are contending for the same territory. That is not the same as to say that there are two nations in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Fletcher: I accept the correction. I would not use the word "nations", but I cannot think of the term I need to

  1597
  express my concept of the situation—perhaps "three-quarter nations". By "nation" I mean a community with its own pattern of myths and legends, its own version of its history and a sense of distinct identity against all other communities and nations, and we have that in Northern Ireland.
  It was exemplified yesterday in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), who can go over to Northern Ireland, move into the Catholic community and never have the slightest contact with the Protestant community. It was exemplified by the fact that his friend—and, incidentally, mine —Mr. George Currie, lately a Member of this House, got himself into serious political difficulties because he associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock.
  It is this separation, in which communities begin to think of themselves as quasi-nations, which causes political emblems and flags to acquire a significance in Northern Ireland which they never had in this country. The Flags and Emblems Act of 1954 would be a comparatively harmless and innocuous piece of legislation if it were enacted by this House for this part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: Farcical.
  Mr. Fletcher: I have voted for so many farcical measures that I would not mind one more. What would be relatively harmless and innocuous here, in the context of Northern Ireland becomes an offence and an affront to people's sense of identity and nationality. It becomes explosive and disruptive.
  It is because of this fantastic situation, when the so-considered politically normal in Northern Ireland is totally abnormal by every criterion accepted by the rest of the United Kingdom, that we have a paradoxical White Paper presented to deal with the problem.
  I agree, again, with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that the concept of power sharing in any other part of the United Kingdom—indeed, in any other part of the world— would be totally farcical. It is stupid to expect political parties to concentrate themselves in the course of an election
  1598
  campaign, in the sure and certain knowledge that after that campaign is concluded they will have to dissipate any power that they may have won during that campaign. It is a nonsensical proposition for any other country or any other part of the United Kingdom.
  I have been looking for precedents. There was a time when that part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire that we now call the Republic of Austria was detached from the wreckage of that empire and a similar system had to apply in Austria. There was an agreement between the two main parties—the Peoples Party and the Socialist Party—to allocate Ministries to themselves. The Peoples Party traditionally claimed control of the Ministry dealing with the Army and converted that into a power base for the Peoples Party. The Social Party claimed the Ministry dealing with the police and did likewise. It was a fantastic situation. In the post-Second World War situation it has altered. The anschluss finished it off, but it preserved the Republic of Austria for a time.
  I am not suggesting that the White Paper will produce a political miracle in Northern Ireland. I do not see how it can. It may conceivably help to remove the connection between political power and a particular sort of religious belief. In other words, it may encourage people to fight elections on political issues such as, for instance, how rapidly and how effectively the people of Northern Ireland can get the 200,000 houses and the 40,000 extra jobs they need, instead of fighting the election on the proposition that King William III is still alive and kicking, or that the Earls of Ulster, who left in the early part of the seventeenth century, will come back and create an Elysium in the ghettos of Belfast.
  It may conceivably produce a situation in which politicians in Northern Ireland are compelled by the electorate—which may in time forsake confessional politics —to address themselves to those subjects which are the proper concern of politicans and of all who are engaged in political conflict, whether or not they are politicians. It may. It was beginning to happen when the Republic of Austria was destroyed in 1938. There is that feeble, slender precedent but, whatever the paradoxes and contradictions, I am

  1599
  prepared to give it a trial with considerable scepticism and no degree of enthusiasm.
  I wish the Secretary of State no ill. More political reputations have been buried in Irish soil than in the soil of any other part of the world. The traditional relationship between this Parliament and Ireland has been of reputations made in this Parliament being demolished and eventually buried over there. I am willing to give the Secretary of State my vote for his contradictory White Paper because every other alternative that I can conceive or that has been presented to me in the course of the debate—and I have been present more or less throughout— seems to me infinitely worse than the proposals outlined in the White Paper.
  There is the military solution—a temporary military solution; we cannot produce solutions that last for thousands of years. Northern Ireland could be placed under martial law. If we imposed martial law we should have to put in more troops and so alter the character of the British security forces there that they would be unrecognisable to British eyes and to those who give them their support in this House and outside.
  When our armies are forced to carry out police duties it means that they have to carry them out without the local knowledge in the hands of a good policeman. It means that they have to resort to punitive actions which are very unpalatable. It means that instead of bringing people to trial one is, in a sense, empowered to inflict punishment on whole districts, and there are many parts of the world where that has had to be done.
  This I regard as a repellant solution. It is a solution of a kind to one particular problem out of the whole complex of problems to which we are trying to address ourselves in Northern Ireland. But the solution, if it be a solution, is to my mind so much worse than the disease that I cannot possibly entertain it.
  The other semingly plausible solution is that advocated by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) in his more euphoric moments, namely, to say to Northern Ireland: "The guarantee given in 1949 and 1969 and repeated in the White Paper is meaningless. Since we gave it, we have the power
  1600
  to withdraw it, and if you do not behave yourselves we will pull out, and that means the security forces as well as the political apparatus."
  There is no doubt—and this is part of the danger in the situation—that my hon. Friend speaks for a growing number in the country outside this House. It is not a view that has acquired formidable expression in terms of numbers in this House, but judging by my correspondence it is very strongly and increasingly widely held outside this House.
  What if we were to apply that seemingly plausible solution? What if we were to leave Northern Ireland open to the kind of dismal future suggested by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster that the two Irish communities who lay claim to the same territory fight it out? She pointed to the fact that in many parts of the world Governments have emerged as a result of that kind of conflict, though not precisely out of this kind of circumstance.
  But if terrorists and terrorism—and terrorism breeds counter-terrorism—are to fight over Ireland and about the future of Ireland for the next decade, how much of the Province will be left at the end of that process? There would be victory of a kind, and it would be for the majority community.
  Anyone who imagines that the Republic of Ireland would intervene militarily is, in my view, living in cloud-cuckoo-land. One fact of the situation is that the Republic of Ireland is no longer particularly interested in taking any part of Ulster into the Republic. I cannot see the Republic of Ireland intervening militarily on behalf of any guerrilla actions conducted by the minority community, and the result could only be one in which the two sides literally clawed themselves to destruction and destroyed the economy and the society of Northern Ireland in the process. Thus, that is not an alternative.
  We are left with a contradictory and in many ways muddled and paradoxical White Paper and the two Bills which are to follow. One paradox about them is that right at the outset they assume so fundamental a change in attitudes in Northern Ireland to make them work as amounts to a reconstruction of the whole of Northern Irish society.

  1601
  In fact, the right hon. Gentleman is now engaged in an enterprise the magnitude of which he may not understand himself. It is comparable to the enterprise embarked upon by the United States of America in the period of the reconstruction of the South, a political exercise that cost the life of one President and produced the impeachment of another, Andrew Johnson—an experiment that lasted 100 years, is still not completed, and is still not successful.
  Yet, is spite of my scepticism, I am prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. He will go back to the Province of Northern Ireland with my support, because every other alternative of which I can think—I repeat myself, but it is necessary to underline this proposition—is infinitely worse than the one that has been presented to us in the course of the debate.
  It is for that reason, and with no enthusiasm whatever, that I shall vote for the White Paper tonight.
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. John Spence: I wish to make a few general observations, but first some particular observations, on the White Paper.
  In my view there never was any prospect that the White Paper would meet with universal acceptance in Ulster. It never had a chance. Nevertheless, from a long connection with that Province, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what I believe to be the most courageous effort yet made to guide Ireland in the direction of a solution of its centuries-old problems.
  Having read the White Paper, I believe he has had the courage to go to the central and perennial issue in Irish affairs. What he is saying in the White Paper is, "You must work together". I am sure it is clear now to Ulster Members on both sides of the House that if they fail to work together the whole settlement outlined in the White Paper must fail.
  To those who already forecast failure, I say that the possibilities that could flow from failure do not bear contemplation. From recent consultations with my relatives and friends—and there is a certain limitation on what a private Member can do in this regard—I find no reason yet to condemn the proposals of
  1602
  my right hon. Friend, or to imagine that they will necessarily fail.
  I approach the White Paper with a confident assumption that failure will not happen but reason and moderate opinion will prevail.
  I therefore apply my mind to areas in which we in this House can help, through constructive discussion and by analysis, the ideas and the philosophy behind the White Paper. How can we aid its success? I believe the first and essential aid to success is electoral speed. The elections to the Assembly must in my view be given top priority. My right hon. Friend said he had this in mind. I believe he is conscious of this and of how necessary these elections are. We welcome the indication he gave of when the elections would take place. His target date was somewhere about the end of June.
  I put the Assembly elections by far above the necessity for local government elections. I believe it would be wrong to allow the local government elections to take place before the elections to the Assembly. Whilst there are several reasons for my advocating this course. I will confine myself to one only.
  For the past 12 months at least, the political stage has of necessity been handed over to militants in the Ulster community. Moderates have had a poor platform and they have had little authority. Moderates exist in Ulster society and it is probable that they remain as a major force. The stage cannot be left any longer to the militants. Therefore speed in arranging the Assembly elections is of the very essence.
  The second aid to success concerns the shades of political opinion that my right hon. Friend will feel able to permit to take part in the election. I know that I am on dangerous ground here and that I am touching on prejudice and emotion. But I would ask my right hon. Friend to extend the spectrum of political opinion as widely as he possibly can. To my Ulster colleagues on my side of the House, I say let them regard this situation with a sense of reality. Both Sinn Fein and Republican clubs exist. I should like to see both organisations brought out into the open and their real power base in population support put to the test. It could be as insignificant in the North as

  1603
  it was shown to be in the South in the recent general election.
  The third aid to success concerns security. Security goes to the heart of any society and I welcome the emphasis placed on it in the White Paper. But will my right hon. Friend give a little more, and be a little more explicit about this and particularly about the police force? Will he examine his proposals again, bearing in mind that after the last four years of violence and intimidation, security has become a predominant issue in the minds of people in Ulster? From talking to these people, if I understand their feelings correctly, I believe that they wish for an effective and well-equipped police force in which the community has a real responsibility and a real involvement. This could be my right hon. Friend's goal once the Assembly is ready to accept its responsibilities.
  There are two further aids to success with which I wish to deal. One is the question of Ulster representation in this House. Setting aside for a moment the degree of devolution to the Assembly that may be agreed ultimately, on a population basis the sending of 12 Members to Westminster is, as a matter of arithmetical fact, under-representation. That is beyond dispute.
  What can be discussed however is the increase or decrease in representation which will be appropriate to correspond with the degree of devolution. As the degree of devolution has not yet been decided, and cannot be decided now, I suggest that the correct and appropriate decision to make now is that the representation in this House should not be decided. I should be happier if my right hon. Friend could respond to that by saying that representation, either more or less than at present, would be looked at afresh once the degree of devolution has been determined and seen to be operating satisfactorily.
  The other point concerns the United Kingdom status of Northern Ireland, which is referred to in detail in paragraph 32 of the White Paper. The White Paper says that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will ex-
  1604
  plain how the people's wishes in deciding the issue will be obtained? Is it to be through the elected Assembly or by a referendum? I hope that a referendum will be the method adopted and that tests of opinion through elections would not be taken too frequently—I hope all parties will agree to this course of action—and that it perhaps should be once every 15 years. I believe that a period of constitutional stability is now needed both to restore confidence in the Province and to give the White Paper's proposals a chance of constructive operation on their merits.
  I have endeavoured to pinpoint some of the areas where a little give and take might help the White Paper's chances and prospects for success. There are parts of it which could be improved and other parts on which I have not touched but in the last analysis we are left to judge the White Paper solely on its merits. Its outstanding merit, as I see it, is its purpose to provide a way forward out of the present violence and instability which will benefit the law-abiding majority in both communities.
  We cannot say categorically whether it will work. But I believe it has an excellent chance of doing so providing that the law-abiding majority in both communities asserts its right to decide its future by the peaceful democratic means that the White Paper seeks to promote.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McManus: In his opening remarks yesterday the Prime Minister referred to the past which failed. That blinding flash of insight, for the British Prime Minister to admit that fact, is most welcome even at this late stage. I regret, however, that that insight did not lead the Prime Minister to dispense a more accurate analysis of why it had failed. It behoves the Members of this House to examine once more what, I would suggest, is the basic reason why the past failed. It failed because an attempt was made to establish and continue an unnatural entity known as Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) deliberated at great length and very expertly about what a Member of Parliament should do. He said it was not that they should give things a try, but should

  1605
  use their judgment. That is a valid point. But it is equally valid for me to say that over 50 years ago similar Members of Parliament came to this place and exercised their judgment on what was right for Ireland. Now 50 years later a British Prime Minister is talking about the past which failed.
  If they were wrong then in their judgment, surely it is at least conceivable that they have been wrong again about what is basically at fault in Northern Ireland. It is for that reason that I believe the White Paper will fail like the past has failed, not because the people who wrote it wish it to fail, nor because the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland necessarily wish it to fail. It will fail because it cannot succeed because it attempts the impossible. It attempts to normalise what is basically an abnormal state, an abnormal entity. In simplistic terms it is like an attempt to redecorate a building or house which should have been demolished long ago.
  I have no doubt that the team which drafted the White Paper wish earnestly that it will work. But earnest wishes unfortunately will not be enough. It is reasonable from a British point of view and it is well drawn up in the British dimension. But it does not work in the Irish dimension. My basic thesis is that this is an Irish problem and that it will be solved satisfactorily only in the Irish dimension.
  It may well be that the White Paper will improve for a time, or ameliorate, conditions in Northern Ireland, but I fear that it will not solve the problem in Northern Ireland because that problem is essentially a problem of one community with two traditions opposed to each other through the lack of a common allegiance. The most radical defect of the White Paper is that it makes no attempt at all to seek, or to lay the basis for, accommodation between two opposing traditions. What is needed is an attempt to accommodate those two allegiances rather than to attempt to frustrate both. The power of the Unionists has been reduced slightly without in any way increasing the powers of the minority. Voices have been raised in the Unionist tradition about this notion of shared loyalty or shared allegiance, but the White Paper
  1606
  does not make any real attempt to foster or foment that sort of thing.
  It also ignores what one might call the considerable developments which have taken place on both sides in the last year. It attempts institutions which may well look fair, but—this is where it basically falls down—it affirms a link repugnant, if we take the figures of the last referendum, at least to 42 per cent. of the population and makes them feel aliens in their own land. All that has happened in the last year in my opinion —and I believe there is ample evidence of this—has promoted suspicion in the other 58 per cent. that the link is by no means solid or inviolate. So while it has offended one side it has by no means satisfied the other.
  Someone said the other day that if by some queer logic the British satisfy both sides we might make progress. Englishmen are fond of making patronising remarks like that about the Irish people, but it was not an intelligent remark because it showed an abysmal lack of understanding of what is going on.
  The White Paper gives the minority certain rights to dissent from what they do not believe in. They can now dissent from the fact that they are part of the United Kingdom, but the White Paper does not give either community the right to assent to any new constitutional arrangement that may come about.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) yesterday what his position would be if the new Assembly when elected—let us pose the hypothetical question to which the people of Northern Ireland have a right to have an answer—decided in conference before meeting the Secretary of State that it would be best for all concerned to negotiate some form of independence. My hon. Friend did not answer directly, but he indicated that if the Northern Irish are foolish enough for that sort of thing we should have to look at it again.
  When he winds up the debate tonight, the Minister of State might give some indication of what British Government thinking would be in that case, because the Prime Minister has gone on record that the Assembly would be cut off without a penny and he scolded and wagged his finger. That is not the sort of language

  1607
  calculated to promote good relations in Northern Ireland. Whether or not it goes down well with the British public may be another matter. Without increasing any efforts towards shared allegiance, it has merely decreased the effectiveness of either side in the decision-making process. Finally, I suppose, one would say that it seeks a reasonable compromise from a British point of view but ignores all attempts at accommodation in the Irish dimension.
  Another basic defect is very evident when one reads the White Paper. The British Government cannot make up their mind whether they are dealing with two communities or one community, which is divided. Paragraph 52 refers to either community and again to a divided community. It is this basic failure to understand and to come down on either side-either that we are one community which is divided or two separate communities— which the British Government have not solved in the terms of the White Paper.
  The question is, which are we? I believe that we are one community with two traditions, two allegiances. I believe the beginning of the solution will be found when those two communities can meet and discuss as equals, and perhaps in this case the White Paper has something to recommend it. It will at least enable the communities to meet as equals. We shall be equally second-class citizens in the United Kingdom. There will be levelling down and all will equally lack power. But until the two communities can agree themselves on something to which they will give basic allegiance, this White Paper or any other White Paper cannot solve the problem.
  There may well be in the community I represent, the minority community, a fairly widespread desire to look again or to look more deeply at this White Paper and to say, "Let us examine it a little more closely to see what is in it." But there are certain fundamental issues which prevent that closer look, certain issues which hinder or impede any real examination of the White Paper from where the minority stand. I will enumerate them.
  The first, of course, is internment and the proposal to continue detention without trial. Following the remarks, which
  1608
  were similar, by the hon. Lady, the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), whether English men like it or not, or whether they understand it or not, this is the way in which the minority views things. Ministers at the Dispatch Box can decide anything they like, but they will not change the opinions of the minority just by producing a White Paper or an Act of Parliament. The minority see that the continuation of internment means that even though there is to be a new structure and things will be called by different names, essentially the same old policy of repression is to be carried over into the new order. Until the slate can be wiped clean in this respect, a great proportion of the minority, who might otherwise want to look sympathetically at this proposal, are unable to do so.
  Another matter quite rightly mentioned is the police. The Secretary of State says in the White Paper that to be effective a police force must be accepted. It must have a degree of integration with the community which it is protecting and within which it is operating. That makes he best of good sense. But on the other hand he says that the RUC must be strengthened in manpower and equipment, ignoring the most basic fact in Northern Ireland life, that the police force as now formed is not acceptable to the minority. They regard it, whether for good reasons or bad—and I think these are good reasons—as a police force basically sectarian, conceived as a political arm to defend a certain set of individuals in the ascendancy of power. There is no evidence to suggest that the nature of the police force has changed. To police the new order the Secretary of State envisages in Northern Ireland he should surely have had the breadth of vision and the political courage to say that the police force at the very least needs very drastic reform
  As yet, not a word has been mentioned about how the police are to be reformed. I have specific ideas about how they should be reformed. But those will probably be matters for debate on the Bill—[Interruption.] The hon. and large Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) laughs. He thinks that I shall suggest that all policemen ought to be abolished. That is not my view at all. Certain policemen are a good idea. But they have to be policemen of a certain

  1609
  type and not the para-military arm of a political party.
  The third matter to which attention must be given ought not to be important but is vitally important. I refer of course to the Flags and Emblems Act. The fact that flags and emblems mean a lot in Northern Ireland is self-evident. All that the British people have to do is to switch on their television sets, especially around 12th July, to see just how important flags and emblems are to the majority community. It is reasonable to assume also that flags and emblems are very important to the minority community. One of my Unionist colleagues said yesterday that flags of the Republic were banned only when they were used in inflamatory situations where they were likely to lead to breaches of the peace. That sort of language puts its finger on the problem. How is it that the flag of the Republic of Ireland could lead to a breach of the peace? The police say that it does and therefore that it cannot be carried, on the assumption that if the majority community are taunted by the flag they will resort to violence of some sort.
  Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman also agree that the Union Jack is not allowed to be carried in certain areas in Northern Ireland for the same reason?
  Mr. McNamara: Not under the Flags and Emblems Act.
  Mr. McManus: It may be that the inhabitants of a certain area have grounds to hate the Union Jack, and it may be said that they have excellent reasons for doing so. But there is no statutory measure by which it is forbidden to carry it.
  This offensive piece of legislation which has no great practical importance—or certainly should not have—ought to be removed. Any flag that anyone wishes to raise should be raised. If that change were brought about I believe that there would be a general falling off in all flag waving in Northern Ireland, which itself would be good.
  My fourth recommendation to the Government is one which has been dealt with already. For that reason I simply refer to it. It is the need for full and free elections. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Spence) recommended that all persons who wished to
  1610
  contest elections should be free to do so. I agree with him passionately. In doing so I refer specifically to Sinn Fein and to the Republican clubs which are proscribed organisations.
  There is a suggestion between the two Front Benches which will not wash. They wish to remove the restrictions but in some way or other to set up people so that they may fall into the trap of the British Government's making—
  Mr. McNamara: Nonsense.
  Mr. McManus: It most certainly is not nonsense. It has been suggested that perhaps we can coax them out into the open so that they may be defeated at the elections and then we shall know who represents whom. That is not the way to go about business in a fair and open-minded way. It is not likely to encourage people of that nature to contest the elections.
  I believe that not only should everyone be entitled to contest elections but that the elections should be free. A person standing for election ought not to have in the back of his mind the feeling that if he is defeated, after the election is over it is likely that the security forces will be knocking on his door because he identified himself and made certain statements in his campaign.
  Mr. Orme: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) does not wish to misrepresent what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said about this matter. What he did was to ask whether it was possible to find means whereby the Republican clubs and Sinn Fein could be allowed to stand as parties and to put up candidates with no strings attached. There was no thought in his mind that this should be a trap which could be sprung at some future date.
  Mr. McManus: I am delighted to have that assurance.
  If all these conditions are met or an attempt is made to meet them, I believe that the White Paper can perhaps make a significant contribution. If they are not met, I fear that the White Paper cannot and will not make any significant contribution.
  7.26 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The one announcement in this debate which will be very helpful to the situation in Northern Ireland is the announcement of a firm date some time in June about the elections in Northern Ireland.
  For far too long the representatives of Northern Ireland have been asked for whom they speak. For far too long the people of Northern Ireland have had no opportunity at the ballot box to say how their country should be run and to whom they give their political allegiances. At this juncture in the affairs of Northern Ireland it is very important that the people of Northern Ireland be given an opportunity to speak through the ballot box. I cannot stress that enough.
  I trust that all the very diverse forces in Northern Ireland—people who suffer from a sense of frustration, people who feel that this House has not been right in its attitudes and decisions; and they come from both sides of the political and religious fences—will at long last have an opportunity to express themselves by supporting those candidates who put forward views in which they believe.
  I realise that there is one great difficulty, and it is one which must be faced in the light of the circumstances in Northern Ireland. It is impossible to have someone who has committed atrocities and advocated their committal finding himself suddenly standing at the ballot box to be tested. But there is no reason why people who have not engaged in subversive activities but who still believe in the principles of Republicanism and the declared policies of the IRA should not stand as candidates and voice the opinions of those to whom they look for votes.
  I should welcome a full expression of opinion from every section of the community at the ballot box. Only by that will this House understand the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland. That is very important.
  Let us suppose that the Government say, "Very well. The Provisional Sinn Fein will be made legal and its candidates may stand for election." They will stand on an abstentionist policy, in any event. They have declared that they will not sit in the Assembly or have discussions with representatives of the Assembly
  1612
  By recognising the Provisional Sinn Fein we should achieve very little since even if they were allowed to fight elections they would not take part in the democratic process.
  There are a number of matters that this House ought to bear in mind. It may be that we are discussing today not Northern Ireland but the future of the whole of the United Kingdom. Perhaps hon. Members do not realise what I am trying to get over to them. In many senses we in Northern Ireland have been caught up in a struggle which goes far beyond the basic differences between two sections of the community.
  There are other elements in Northern Ireland which do not want a settlement of any kind. They are elements that are purely and totally destructive. They want to see the destruction of Northern Ireland not merely as an entity in the United Kingdom but as part of the Western democratic system. All sorts of diverse forces are at work in Northern Ireland which seek to forward the forces of anarchy, revolution and finally the destruction of democracy.
  Many of the people of Northern Ireland feel there has been a retreat in the face of that attack. That is their opinion. A year ago many hon. Members appeared to think that if Stormont were removed a settlement would come. Stormont was removed but the violence continued. Many hon. Members now take the view, "Let us give the White Paper a try." At the back of their minds they are saying the same thing—"Perhaps if we give it a try the violence will cease."
  I am not at all convinced—no matter what test is made at the ballot box—that certain forces in Northern Ireland will not continue their terrorism. Some of the people who have committed some of the terrible atrocities which have blackened the pages of our history in the past weeks and months are not interested in the well-being of any section of the community. They do not care about the people who are homeless. They do not care about unemployment and the difficulties which face the people who have to live their lives and go to their places of work. All they care about is carrying on their murder and atrocities.
  The House should take cognisance of the fact that the IRA will have to be

  1613
  defeated if it is determined to carry on its fight of murder, burnings and bombings. The only way to defeat it is with the strong arm of the law. I made myself unpopular for speaking about internment. I did not think that it was any solution to the problem. I was proved right.
  The House must realise that there are forces in Northern Ireland which care not for the Government White Paper and the opinion of democracy. They are determined to go on with their policies. They believe that violence in the end will pay. It is a sad thing, but to some degree violence has paid off in Ulster. That is the sad story which is the result of retreating in the face of the urban guerrilla groups. It is tragic, when we read of guerrilla groups in other countries, to find that it is hard to discover an instance when the forces of democracy carried the day. Those are sombre thoughts for every hon. Member.
  There are many people who make diverse comments on the White Paper. There are many people who say that it is sweet and reasonable and that anybody who votes against it is unreasonable. It is said that anybody who objects to it will bear a heavy responsibility. Surely it is our duty to voice our objections on the Floor of the House to what we think is obnoxious in the White Paper. There are some who have developed strands of intolerance and who object to us opposing parts of the White Paper. Surely we are entitled to object to it. Surely the people of Northern Ireland at the ballot box have the rgiht to say what they think about the matter.
  I welcome the contribution made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). He gave me what I would call a text for an address. He said that the future of Northern Ireland will be determined by the people of Northern Ireland themselves. Paradoxically, running through the debate there has been the suggestion that a very dangerous situation could develop if the elections throw up a group in Northern Ireland that this House does not like, with which it does not agree and with which it will not cooperate. It is possible then that with a stroke of the pen the Secretary of State on 31st March next year will say, " Fare thee well." I say that this makes us second-class citizens.
  1614
  The Assembly will be democratically elected on a franchise which this House has approved but by a system of which many people in Northern Ireland do not approve. At present the best thing that the Government could have done was to have the STV system. That will help, it is believed, all groups to get into the Assembly and to voice their opinions. I am no advocate of that system as this House knows. However, the House has drawn up the franchise and has told the people the way in which they will vote.
  What happens if Northern Ireland votes a majority of people that this House does not like? The majority may find that they would be happier agreeing with people with whom they disagreed before. They may prefer to choose their rooms in the house by mutual agreement rather than by this Parliament saying, "You will sit in the drawing-room and you will sit in the back attic". If there is an agreement across the Floor and the Assembly comes to the House and says, "That is what we want in Northern Ireland", what will this House do? Will it say, "We have a White Paper. You must abide by the terms of the White Paper. You must bow to the White Paper. You must accept the White Paper"?
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), whose politics and mine are at opposite poles, made a very wise statement. She said that the people of Northern Ireland with whom she is allied now have an antipathy towards the South of Ireland. I should not like to see Northern Ireland ever going outside the Union. It would be my aim to keep it within the Union. However, there is a section of feeling in Northern Ireland that feels restless with the attitude of this House and with the Government. Maybe in these circumstances the Assembly would find itself coming to an agreement about what the future will hold.
  What will the Government's attitude be on 31st March next year? Will it be, "We cannot have you. We will not wear you. Fare thee well"? Or will it be, "All right, let us sit down and see what agreement we can reach"? The Leader of the Unionist Party has told us that he will negotiate privately with the Secretary of State and that he will get an agreement on certain things. I am glad that it has been made plain

  1615
  that there will be no personal or private deals with the Secretary of State. So much for Mr. Faulkner's negotiations. Others have said that they will fight the election and that when they come to this House they will know what strength they have and that they will negotiate on that basis.
  Mr. Hume, of Londonderry and of the SDLP, a colleague of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), has said that the SDLP looks upon the Assembly as an elected, negotiating conference.
  Mr. Stallard: For 12 months.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Well, at the end of 12 months if the Secretary of State was not pleased, will he wipe the Assembly out by a stroke of the pen? We have been asked in this House, "Why can't you people agree?" There are some things on which we agree. We agree that there should be an election. The Secretary of State has met us on that and we appreciate the efforts made by the Opposition Front Bench about this. There is agreement in this House across the Floor that we should have elections. That is welcomed by everyone, except the Alliance Party which tells us that it will sweep the board. Time will tell.
  We are all agreed that there should be further negotiations and some of us agree that the time to negotiate is not now. The time to negotiate is when the people of Northern Ireland have spoken.
  The Prime Minister said that some of us were raising fears. We were told that when the plebiscite was over there would be no more discussion about the border. What does the White Paper say? It says that immediately there are Assembly elections this Parliament will call for a conference with the Southern Ireland Parliament and the people who represent elected Northern Ireland opinion. It does not say that they will be elected representatives of the Assembly. The first thing to be discussed will be the border—after telling us that the border was to be taken out of politics. The White Paper says that the discussions will be about the possibility of changing the status of Northern Ireland.
  I know this White Paper almost like my Bible. I notice that the Secretary of
  1616
  State is looking up page 30, paragraph 112(a). This is the "Authorized Version". It says:
  "the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland, and of the possibility— which would have to be compatible with the principle of consent—of subsequent change in that status"
  Why put that first if the border were to be taken out of politics altogether? It should have been relegated to the background altogether. Even the hon. Member for Belfast, West says that there will not be a united Ireland overnight. Even he is prepared to put that into the future.
  Mr. Fitt: The end of the month.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Then it will be a long month for the people of Northern Ireland. Those people have to face the fact that they will be having elections. The Secretary of State should spell out whether he believes that the elected Assembly could be an elected conference to discuss matters on which there is not agreement. If we can have an assurance about that we shall be taking a step forwards.
  There are many things in the White Paper I could discuss and emphasise. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell us tonight that he will let the elections take place and will then be happy to talk with the people in the Assembly who reach some sort of agreement, that will be well and good. This House is saying, " We are tired of this situation. Let the Ulster people decide." The text from the hon. Member for Leeds, South is "The Ulster people will have final decision." Let the Ulster people decide. Will this House let them decide?
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has recently shown some signs of backsliding, as I told him the other day, into the area of education and away from statesmanship. I want to put on record my disappointment that he has not made more of a direct contribution to the debate, as he could have done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) gave him a welcome when the hon. Member was elected to this House. My right hon. Friend said that he looked forward to

  1617
  the important role that the hon. Gentleman would be able to play. The obligation upon him now is as great as ever it was.
  The real test of working for democracy is not in debate but in the political work that is done in the constituencies. The hon. Gentleman referred to second-class citizens. He knows that there is no danger of my looking upon anyone in that light. I would humbly compare myself with him as an equal citizen but there is not much danger of my going beyond that.
  We have seen so far in the debate a dangerous interplay of extremism which will lead us nowhere unless a third solution is found. I regret that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is not now present. The way in which he used the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) was wholly destructive and made no contribution to the debate. His counsel was dangerous. There are some obvious reasons why he, of all people, as a former Cabinet Minister, is not in a position to engage in this sort of dangerous attitude. He used his logic. Thomas Hobbes used his drastic logic. If this were an intellectual game the right hon. Gentleman would be free to do so. However it is not just a game.
  It is possible to argue that we are facing one group which is concerned to coerce the people of Northern Ireland into a new political alignment and that that group is using the bomb in the process of coercion. That is true. We could equally well say that there are extremist groups at the other end of the political spectrum—I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is leaving the Chamber because I am coming to his amendment. I have moved to his end of the spectrum. At that end of the spectrum we have his modest amendment talking about the number of representatives. Yet this is from someone who has taken part in extremist meetings in Belfast and joined in television interviews with Mr. Craig and others, when the attack on the White Paper was not to do with the modest point of the number of Members in the House but was rather a fundamental attack on the White Paper.
  1618
  I expected the hon. and gallant Gentleman to repeat what he said in those television interviews instead of giving us a milk-and-water version of his attitude.
  Captain Orr: With respect, I repeated precisely what I said earlier. I pointed to the four points on which I found agreement. This is precisely what I have said on television.
  Mr. Mendelson: No. In those television interviews the hon. and gallant Gentleman was standing between the hon. Member for Antrim, North and Mr. Craig, taking part in a fundamental root-and-branch attack on this White Paper.
  Captain Orr Captain Orr indicated dissent.
  Mr. Mendelson: It is easy for the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to say that because both of the propositions I have outlined are true we are thus faced with two extremist attitudes and that therefore the logic of events points to hostility towards the White Paper.
  Mr. McManus: My hon. Friend is being a little unfair to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) because as I remember the interview he did not manage to get a word in edge ways.
  Mr. Mendelson: I must tell my hon. Friend that I am more diligent than he. It was only at one television interview that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not get a word in. There were other occasions when he managed to join in. I saw them all. I stayed up late for the purpose.
  I return to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. It was in many ways a dangerous and important contribution to the debate. I will vote this evening for this White Paper and respond immediately to the suggestion made by the right hon. Member that we all have a duty to explain why we do so. We have to explain to our own constituents whether we have accepted our proper responsibility this evening or whether we are merely doing this because we are saying, "Give it a go".
  Whatever the views of hon. Members from Northern Ireland, there is one consideration which ought to make sense to

  1619
  the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Whatever constituency hon. Members in this House represent it cannot be a matter of indifference to the people of Penistone or the people of Sheffield what might happen in Northern Ireland. This point has not yet been made in this debate. Perhaps people do not want to make it too frankly. That is my first reason for voting for the White Paper.
  We cannot allow a situation to develop in which military events take place in Northern Ireland which are completely beyond our control. We have no knowledge of what outside powers may decide to intervene or who may take over the supply of arms to either extreme. Nor do we know what would happen if we washed our hands and left Northern Ireland to be a battlefield. This is a consideration which brings in the direct responsibility of hon. Members, for whatever constituency in the United Kingdom they sit.
  There are imperfections in the White-Paper, but it is trying to put an end to two attitudes that have been bedevilling public life in Northern Ireland for many years. In this matter I will get disagreement from hon. Members from Northern Ireland and from other Conservative and Unionists Members. On this side of the House at least we know that for more than 40 years one section of the people in the political life of Northern Ireland has had a monopoly of power. Those people have used this monopoly for a great deal of discrimination for many years. This is the starting point for many of my hon. Friends.
  After the first violence in 1969, I went to Belfast as a member of a Labour Party commission for an on-the-spot look, before my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who was then Home Secretary, went there. I interviewed a lady who worked in a post office. She said that, for more than 26 years, and up and until six weeks before we arrived, practically all the staff in the post office belonged to one section of the community.
  On my visit I also spoke to Captain Anderson in Derry. He was then a member of Stormont. Before going to see Captain Anderson I had spent half
  1620
  a day visiting the section where most of the people are members of the minority religion. I spoke to Captain Anderson and members of the party which was in the majority at the time. I asked Captain Anderson whether there were any members of the Catholic minority on the staff of the town council. He said they did not have any Catholics employed in the administration. When I asked him whether there had ever been an opportunity to employ a Catholic, he said that 10 years before a man had applied to be deputy director of education and he had been turned down. This is the position and the starting point of many quite unbiassed hon. Members on this side of the House.
  There are hon. Members who, under the pretext of modest amendments, are hoping to bring back that domination. We heard some semi-Marxism from the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin)—[Interruption.]—it has been echoed to some extent on the other side of the Chamber—which was regarded by the right hon. Member for Wolver-hampton,South-West as brilliantly logical. His standards are falling. There was a pretence by the hon. Member that there is a system of law and justice among many of her compatriots when she gave a shocking example of members of the Provisional IRA shooting people through the knee when they had committed a number of offences. That is not justice, it is not law, it is not even logic. It is the uncivilised kind of living that existed centuries ago. The majority of Roman Catholics in the Province do not share the attitudes of young hooligans who shoot people through the knee. It is slander for the hon. Lady to say that they approve of such conduct by members of the Provisional IRA. This is quite untrue, as many of us know who have spent days and weeks there talking to people on all sides.
  Something different is involved. There are too many people playing at politics. Too many people are wishing, by following an extremist course, to make sure of their re-election either to this House or to the Assembly.
  It will depend very much on the hon. Member for Antrim, North—for whom I am not alone in having a sincere regard —and others like him and the way in

  1621
  which they conduct themselves in this election campaign as to what can be done with the Assembly and by the Assembly when it is elected. I know he will agree with me on that point. If people start seeking firm assurances now from the Secretary of State on everything which may happen once the Assembly has been elected, they will condemn it to something far less fruitful than would otherwise be the case.
  I suggest a slightly different attitude to the hon. Gentleman. There are suggestions in the White Paper to put an end by agreement to the throwing of bombs, the attempted assassination and the actual killing. That is my second main reason for voting for the White Paper..
  I would say to those hon. Members on my own side who are within my hearing that they have a similar duty. Tonight, we are giving a signal in favour of the replacement of violence by an admittedly modest and imperfect attempt to reintro-duce politics into the life of the people of Northern Ireland. I appeal to hon. Members to vote with me for the White Paper so as to help to give that signal.
  My third reason concerns the kind of things that the Assembly might do. I think that the hon. Member for Antrim, North has been rather harsh to Mr. Faulkner. I am not known as a one-man admiration society for Mr. Faulkner, but the hon. Member has been harsh on him. After all, anyone who faces the task of leading a political party in the face of the kind of combination of the "terrible three" who appeared on television the day after publication of the White Paper has his work cut out. I felt some compassion for Mr. Faulkner on the evening of the meeting of the Unionist Council when he had to prepare a policy.
  It is essential that we should have agreement among ourselves in the House —not only those directly involved in the Province—to approach this election with the best possible will to see that it can be as democratic an election as could take place in any British community. Facing similar difficulties, I do not know whether, for instance, the part of the country that I represent would necessarily act more reasonably then some of the colleagues of the hon. Member back in Ulster. I have no attitude of superiority in this respect. I do not know what pas-
  1622
  sions may lead people to do in politics. Wherever we speak, wherever we run our campaign, we should all give support to the Secretary of State. I say this deliberately to the right hon. Gentleman, recognising that he is a member of another party. In our day-to-day conduct we should not try to catch him out with clever questions, such as, "Will you guarantee that if we elect the Assembly peacefully we can immediately proceed to destroy one of the central sections of the White Paper?".
  In putting forward this document to the people of Northern Ireland the Government must say that they expect people to accept the basic principles. What would be the consequences if they did not? If the Government responded to one extreme view and said, "All right, we do not insist on this central section. This is just an exercise. You can do what you like afterwards and you do not have to be conscious of any political principles involved in the White Paper ", what would the minority say? Does not the hon. Member for Antrim, North see, as anyone else ought to be able to see, that this is a most carefully put together document and that it could not be anything else but that? I do not expect the document to give me all that I may regard as reasonable. By upsetting it before the election campaign has taken place, all the dangers which we are trying to exorcise would return in full force.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry that I did not get my point over to the hon. Gentleman. It was this. If the Assembly were elected and, by force of circumstance, there was a coming together of opinion by the main body in the Assembly, from both sides of the fence, and they agreed to say to the Secretary of State, across the board, "These are the things that together we are agreed that we should have", what would happen? That was the point. I was not saying that one section should dominate the Assembly. I was saying, surely the Secretary of State should be prepared to negotiate with them.
  Mr. Mendelson: I understood the hon. Gentleman perfectly, and I object to what I understood. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the people of one extreme point of view, the provisional IRA. the

  1623
  people of the extreme Protestant viewpoint, and some people in between, might find that in numbers they have 43 or 45 members in that Assembly and that they then agree to try to change the whole basis of the White Paper on which they have just been elected. The hon. Gentleman wants in advance a commitment from the Secretary of State. That is a most unreasonable and dangerous course.
  The democratic course is to accept the White Paper as a basis, to work it, to have a democratic election campaign and to leave the future to the future, instead of trying to arouse suspicions as to what might happen after the election. I am trying modestly to advise the hon. Gentleman to desist and to adopt the alternative attitude.
  The Division tonight will be quite as important as was indicated by the right hon Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. In a debate of this kind, naturally there have been quite a number of speeches which have rightly been critical of the political basis of the White Paper or of some of its details. That is what the House of Commons is for. The Chair is obliged and willing to call hon. Members who have views that are critical of the main proposal in a larger proportion than those who might say that they accept the general policy and agree with it. Otherwise, the views of critics would be very largely ignored and the general formation of opinion in the House would not take place.
  But although that is so, there are considerable numbers of my hon. Friends, and hon. Members of other parties, who accept the political principle involved in the White Paper, although they may have reservations on particular points. Some of those reservations have been brought out. No doubt they will be mentioned again tonight from the Opposition Front Bench.
  A considerable number of hon. Members know also that this document cannot be perfect. This is a most difficult attempt to reintroduce ordinary politics, as a substitute for the gun and the assassin, into the lives of the majority of law-abiding, sincere people of Northern Ireland. Some of them are terrorised by the activities of extremist minorities, which must be neutralised and defeated so that the majority can live freely a political life.
  1624
  How does one do that? It cannot be done by preaching.
  The final reason why I shall support the White Paper in the Lobby is that preaching against extremists is futile. The only way to beat extremists and to provide a proper political basis for the majority of religions and sections of the community is to put forward a modest basis for political life after taking a great deal of advice. With the co-operation of hon. Members over the last 12 months, the Government have done this in this document. I shall vote for it with conviction.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Soref: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) objects to what he calls a monopoly of power in the former Stor-mont Parliament because it was a Unionist Government. I have not heard him criticise other monopolies of power which exist elsewhere in the world and which are wholly Left. On the other hand, surely it will be conceded that the power that was held by Stormont was held by majority rule. There was one man, one vote. That Government ruled by a democratic majority.
  So far in the debate it seems that there has been unanimity on two matters. First, it is impossible to exaggerate the integrity, patience, courage and abstract fairness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues. It would be churlish not to admit that. Secondly, it would be impossible to exaggerate the heroic role of the Army in its unenviable task. Its discipline, tolerance and restraint has been unbelievable and unique in the face of insurrectionary violence and savagery.
  Beyond that, there are differing views held on both sides of the House. There are those who, like myself, feel that while the constitutional proposals contained in the White Paper may be reasonable for reasonable people, many of the people in Ulster are not altogether reasonable and there is an impossibility of being able to apply these terms in order to change the heart of the people in that Province.
  The White Paper presupposes the possibility of a political solution, which is questionable. The parties involved are irreconcilable. The only immediate solution, as I see it, is a military solution,

  1625
  because it is impossible to legislate fundamental differences out of existence.
  The historic affiliations between political parties and religions are so deep-seated that I cannot see how, by a White Paper, they can be changed. However academically fair the White Paper may be, it cannot work. There is no evidence of that possibility.
  On the other hand, we have been conditioned by the evidence which is forthcoming daily of the atrocities which are taking place in the Province. There is no atrocity so appalling so that we cannot anticipate it happening.
  In this climate of behaviour, I believe that we have to act in a rather different way. Our record for imposing constitutions on our erstwhile colonies and dependencies has not been wholly successful or promising in recent years. Elsewhere we have destroyed multi-party parliaments and replaced them with totalitarian one-party Governments. Ulster had a genuine one-party Government democratically elected with majority rule. Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, speaking in the debate on the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill on 20th March 1972, stated:
  "In the first instance it is temporary and will operate for one year. Stormont will be prorogued and not dissolved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1972; Vol. 834. c. 241.]
  In fact Stormont has been dissolved at a stroke and destroyed. I believe that the dis-establishment of Stormont and the disbandment of the B-Specials has not produced the peaceful conditions envisaged by the temporary euphoria which existed in the House on the establishment of direct rule.
  During the period August 1969 to March 1973 729 men, women and children have been killed. Of that total figure 220 were members of the security forces and 508 were civilians. But since direct rule 318 civilians and 147 members of the security forces have been killed. This is surely evidence that direct rule has not had a satisfactory effect in restoring peace in Ireland. The situation in which irregular forces are capable of murderous behaviour is surely partly due to the fact that not enough strength was employed by the Government to wipe out the IRA at the time of their most serious atrocities.
  1626
  What compensation will Ulster now have for the abolition of Stormont? Surely the Council of Ireland, proportional representation, and shared powers are likely to lead only to further instability. As I see the situation, the possibility that people who have been involved in terrorist offences may be able to stand for Parliament will be a serious matter. Is it said that they are to be allowed to stand for the new Assembly? One London newspaper contained a story in the last few days that an individual who is in the hands of the police in connection with the Old Bailey bombing is a potential candidate for the Assembly. Can Republicans, dedicated to a United Ireland and practising violence, serve in an administration that is determined to retain Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom?
  The situation in Ulster as I see it is virtually a state of war, though few people are prepared to admit it. We are involved not only in the Province but in the real possibility of it spreading in this country, and there is a daily danger of an escalation of events from Ulster to Liverpool, Glasgow and London. Murder has not abated, and so long as the low profile exists I have every fear that this situation will continue.
  It has been said by everybody who has the interests of peace and the future harmony of Ulster at heart that the UDA, the UVF, the Vanguards and other irregular bodies have committed acts which would not be countenanced by this House. Surely, in the light of the daily events in Belfast and elsewhere in Ulster, is it surprising that there has been retaliation? One would imagine that had events like the Old Bailey bombing taken place regularly in this country our people might have reacted in a most unfortunate but understandable way. Coming after the tragic events in Aldershot and the CS bomb that was thrown in this House only two years ago, there is a real danger— and we should recognise this as a future possibility—of an escalation of similar events in this country.
  The other danger that I foresee is the spread of the philosophy on the lines of, "A plague on both your houses". There are many people in this country who feel that the Army should pull out because of the way which our troops have been treated by those who have been active

  1627
  against them. But this is unthinkable. It could only lead to a massacre in the Province and an inevitable escalation of events here.
  We in this country owe a great debt to Ulster not least because of the loyalty during the last war of citizens in the Province, which can be compared more than favourably with what happened in the Irish Free State during the war. For that reason alone one would imagine that there would be a degree of understanding. But, apart from that, despite everything that has happened, we must remember that nearly 600,000 people voted in favour of Ulster remaining part of the United Kingdom. That also is something of which we must be proud. Although understandably there are people who have hopes that by pursuing the White Paper proposals a satisfactory result will be achieved, I would conclude by saying that when the wish is the father to the thought the offspring inevitably will be illegitimate. There is no reason to believe that the implementation of the White Paper will provide peaceful conditions in the Province—and. after all, peace is the aim we all seek.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Orms-kirk (Mr. Soref), but I would not go very far with him in his argument. He seems to be projecting a military solution to the problem. I come from a constituency in the heart of Scotland which has sent the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders three times to Northern Ireland. Some of the troops in that regiment have been back to Ireland on duty five times. I do not think we should ask our troops constantly to undertake more tours of duty in Northern Ireland. I do not say this because I believe the troops in Northern Ireland have not performed a useful function. I am in no way a militarist, but I have great admiration for the work of the British Army in Northern Ireland. No Army in the world could have done the job better.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that morale among the troops was high. People in the United Kingdom are beginning to say to the people of Northern Ireland, "We do not think that any more of our young boys' lives should
  1628
  be lost in Northern Ireland for causes which we on this side of the Irish Channel do not understand."
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is correct to say that the struggles which are taking place in Northern Ireland relate to the future of the whole of the United Kingdom. We are trying to resolve in Northern Ireland whether communities which in some areas are poles apart can live together in tolerance.
  I put this thought in the minds of those who see great deficiencies in the White Paper—and I must admit that there are certain deficiencies. Is it worth the life of a British soldier or of one citizen of Northern Ireland to right the deficiencies in that document? I have supported the cause of the civil rights campaign but I have never thought that pursuit of those rights should mean the life of one person.
  We have heard arguments about what will happen if people who do not want the White Paper to work are elected. We have to live with that situation if it arises. I do not think it will arise but— if I may argue by analogy—if it happened that people in the 71 constituencies in Scotland chose 36 Scottish Nationalists who were determined to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom and they obtained a majority of the seats, I do not think the United Kingdom Parliament could do very much about it. The people of Scotland, having had put before them in clear electoral terms that that was what was going to happen, would have made their choice, for good or ill.
  It is the responsibility of a politician to tell the electorate what his policy is and to be forced to explain to them at the hustings the consequences of that policy. If the hon. Member for Antrim, North or the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) want to fight an election on the basis of root-and-branch opposition to this White Paper and say, in effect, that we will have at the end of the day either a UDI for Ulster or a situation in which we are forced to negotiate or seek terms with our Southern partners, who do not really want us, let them stand in the elections, which I hope will be soon, and say so clearly and definitely, so that the electorate of Northern Ireland will know exactly who and what they are voting for.

  1629
  With some of my parliamentary colleagues I attended the border poll. I have great misgivings about that form of plebiscite, and will continue to have misgivings about plebiscites, but one thing it proved in a negative form was that it is possible to conduct an election even in the situation in Northern Ireland. The security forces were greatly strained, and I would hope that in terms of the timing and organisation of an election, albeit on the basis of PR, we would pay great attention to trying to ease the role of the security forces in elections to the Assembly. I think that is an important function and I hope that all political parties in Northern Ireland will agree to participate in a free election.
  I am not sure how one approaches this delicate area of ensuring that those groups —call them Republican clubs or whatever—are represented at the hustings. I argue very forcibly that they should be, if only on the basis of seeing in clear electoral terms what degree of support they have in the country as a whole. That is a very important consideration, but it is always important to ask people before an eleotion—and I hope that leaders of the political parties, whether for or against the White Paper, will themselves declare that they will not use the election in any way to stir up sectarian hatred— to make a unanimous declaration of their intent.
  My concluding remarks relate to the Council of Ireland. As my hon. Friends know, I am a firm and dedicated European. We really ought to be thinking not about a Council of Ireland but about a Council of the two Irelands and Britain, which would take us both in the direction of a true union. One of the more startling things about our recent entry into the European Economic Community was some Southern Ireland politicians coming to me and saying: "We have discovered that our best friend in terms of the Community will be an Englishman". They were wrong: it is a Scotsman—George Thomson—but in saying that they jumped 200 or 300 years in thought and outlook.
  I therefore suggest that as soon as possible after the elections—and they must come first, on an agreed time-scale, and I know that the Secretary of State has difficulties—we look, not just to a Council of Ireland to resolve the economic
  1630
  problems there, but to a council which will unite Great Britain and Ireland to see how we can get a fruitful dialogue with the members of the European Community.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim,South): I have great pleasure in reinforcing what the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) said about the wisdom of a council of the British Isles—if he will accept that formula. Within the context of the EEC or outside, it makes practical common sense. It is something that this House would do well to consider in the interval between the approval of this White Paper and the bringing forward of the legislation.
  I also apologise to the hon. Member for the fact that he visited my own polling station in the town of Crumlin. I regret that I was not there to receive him, and hope that on another occasion I shall have that pleasure.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Pem-stone (Mr. John Mendelson) will permit me gently to correct him. Whether he knew it or not, he was accusing the Westminster Parliament of discriminating in the matter of the Post Office in Londonderry. I think he will recall that the Post Office was always under the control of the Government here. Under no circumstances did the Stormont Parliament have any influence over its operations in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John Mendelson: This allows me to correct an important mistake. If I said "Post Office" that was an inadvertent mistake. I meant the placing section of the Ministry of Labour in Belfast. In that placing section, whatever the ultimate control, the lady who gave evidence told me that until six weeks before we arrived—and the two events were not connected, of course—there had not been one member of the minority in the placing section. It is easy to see the importance of that situation, because the officials in the placing section put people on to other jobs.
  Mr. Molyneaux: That may well be. but the fact remains that ultimate responsibility rested here; it was under the supervision and direction of the Parliament in Westminster.

  1631
  I am always irritated by evidence of wasted energy and effort. For that reason, I am delighted that there has been very little talk in this Chamber in the past two days of making the White Paper unworkable. In my view, the authors have already done just that. I would prefer a more constructive approach, and say that we will do our level best to improve it out of all recognition.
  Some sections of the White Paper are so absurd that one is tempted to wonder whether they were written tongue-in-cheek by a group of civil servants, perhaps somewhat disgruntled and trying to make the Government appear ridiculous as a revenge for having salary increases stopped under the pay freeze mechanism.
  Despite denials, the clear message of the White Paper is that violence does pay, and it is a message which, I am sorry to say, will not be missed by subversive groups on this side of the Irish Sea. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is true that the terrorists have not succeeded in their main objective, which was the aim of unification. With respect, he should have said that they have not yet achieved that aim.
  They have succeeded in all else. Their most spectacular achievement was, perhaps, the abolition of Stormont, because that was a primary aim. Direct rule conceded that objective and the White Paper gives it permanence.
  For that reason, Parliament must produce significant alterations in the proposals when they come forward in legislative form—alterations designed to make the structure much more credible and much more in line with genuine democratic standards. It would be disastrous if the only lesson were that non-cooperation and violence were more effective, politically, than observance of lawful methods. Yesterday's speeches contained many references to restoring the democratic processes, but the real substance of the White Paper proposals has little in common with parliamentary processes.
  Provision is made for the trappings of democracy. People will be allowed to vote in elections for the new Assembly. But in reality that Assembly will be a mere sounding board. It will not have effective powers to sustain or dismiss the Executive, since that body will be appointed by the Secretary of State. In-
  1632
  deed, the Secretary of State will have far greater power over a part of the United Kingdom than is exercised by any of his Cabinet colleagues, even the Crown itself. By combining the powers of Governor and political head in himself, he will occupy an authoritarian position resembling more closely that of a sultan, the one omission being the harem —and here one must accept a certain delay to ensure that the religious views of the concubines reflect a fair balance between the two communities which can be displayed on the sectarian Scoreboard featured in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday.
  The Council of Ireland is not, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suggested, a tripartite conference. Still less is it a meeting of three Prime Ministers. What is being proposed is a conference between two sovereign Governments and a collection of leaders of Northern Ireland parties, multiplied as they will be by proportional representation. I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite would welcome such a system of representation in the councils of the EEC, but one could hardly claim or expect that it would make for cohesion in the face of conflicting demands by various Governments in that body.
  On the question of power sharing, my position is that no obstacle should be raised on religious grounds to any person who wishes to contribute to the good government of Northern Ireland. Some of the methods suggested and implied in the White Paper are so clearly seen to be unworkable that any resulting structure would be so unstable as to encourage the belief that it could be only temporary—perhaps it is only meant to be temporary—and that the terrorists and all the other troublemakers would simply regard it as a push-over.
  One gets the strong impression that this Parliament has been caught somewhat off balance. I know that many hon. Members expected violent reaction to the publication of the White Paper. A few expected, not without a certain amount of relish, a spell of majority-bashing. Now Parliament is faced with a totally unexpected situation. On the majority side, all parties and groups have resolved to operate the democratic processes. That did not happen by accident, as has been pointed out.

  1633
  The story will be told in due course, and I feel that history will be somewhat kinder to those of my hon. Friends who co-operated in this effort in bringing together people who had been threatening violence, seating them round a table and getting them to agree to operate the democratic processes to ensure any changes or modifications they thought desirable.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed that tonight responsibility would pass from this House to the people of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that power to decide would pass tonight from the Army on watch to the ballot box and those who would use it. I do not disagree with him. All of us who are electors in Northern Ireland welcome this opportunity and this responsibility. It has been further stated that the ballot box and not the gun should be used to give a verdict on the White Paper.
  But here the House is in some difficulty, because the White Paper limits the choices and even states that certain verdicts will be unacceptable. It is this conditional democracy and not the Aunt Sallies of preserving Protestant ascendancy and majority domination which makes the White Paper unacceptable to me in its present form.
  One encouraging feature of the debate has been the evidence that something has been happening in this House in the past 48 hours. There is a greater degree of realism than one has experienced in any previous debate on Northern Ireland. This was evident, for example, in the exchanges between the two Front Benches yesterday, in both what was said and what was implied. I get the impression that it is suddenly realised here that there is much more political maturity in Northern Ireland than observers had previously believed, and if the people of Northern Ireland—all of them; I do not refer to them as two communities, because they are all one community—can be treated in future as adults, and if limits are not set to their political development, they can be relied upon to work through the normal parliamentary process. Threats of making the proposals unworkable will become real only if it is shown that their clearly expressed will is to be ignored or defied.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Parry: Many speeches in this debate have favoured a moderate and tolerant approach to the proposals contained in the White Paper. I believe that it is right to keep the debate in as low a key as possible. Having said that, I fully support the condemnation by many hon. Members of violence from whichever source it may spring.
  As a Liverpool Member, I speak with some knowledge of the Irish problem. The constituency which I represent has within its boundaries the Irish Centre, and it has long association with Ireland. I understand that the famous Irish trade union leader Jim Larkin first saw the light of day there. The neighbouring constituency of Liverpool, Scotland, which merges with my constituency and which I will have the honour of representing after the next election, also has a long historical association with Ireland. I understand that Mr. De Valera once hid there when he was on the run from the police after escaping from prison, and the Scotland Division was represented in this House by an Irish Nationalist, T. P. O'Connor, for nearly 50 years, from 1885 to 1929.
  With this background in mind, following the publication of the White Paper last week I spent a considerable time over the weekend trying to get a consensus of opinion from people in my constituency. I visited the Irish Centre. I discussed the proposals with rank and file members, officers of the committee, a city magistrate, a prominent trade union official, members of my local Labour Party, Councillors and ordinary people in the street. I can assure the House that the overwhelming response I received was that we should give the White Paper and the proposals contained in it a chance.
  I feel that the Irish people and the English people are really sick to death of the killing and the violence. I believe that the proposals are a possible blueprint on which we can eventually build a peaceful Ireland. I believe, too, that, particularly for the religious minority, this Bill has many proposals for which many hon. Members, particularly on this side of the Chamber, have been campaigning for many years—among other things election to the Assembly, on proportional representation, the Charter of Human Rights

  1635
  and the proposal to deal with job discrimination.
  This is not, as Protestant extremists claim, a "sell out" to the IRA. The fact that the Provisional IRA has now rejected the White Paper proves the point. Perhaps I may be permitted to quote from the leader in the Liverpool Daily Post following the publication of the White Paper. Under the headline "A Lifeline for Ulster"—and that is what we are debating tonight—it said,
  "Clearly, it is the Protestant majority who will have to make the greatest sacrifices. The new-style administration, with its 80-member assembly elected by proportional representation, means the end of half a century of built-in privilege and power. But the Unionists and their fellows to the right must have known that the Stormont Parliament would never come back."
  The leader goes on to point out that the White Paper has given them the guarantee they seek—a link with the United Kingdom for as long as the majority wish. It concludes by saying:
  "But it is to be hoped that if the new administration comes into being—and that will depend upon the will and willingness of both sides—Britain will progressively be able to hand over more powers to the Ulster Government.
  It is a lifeline, and an ingeniously constructed one at that, which Mr. Whitelaw has offered. Both groups should consider what the alternative could be if they fail to grasp it."
  The crux of the problem is what the alternative could be. Without wishing to be alarmist, I think that it could lead to a tragic civil war and bloodshed on a scale that we have never seen before. Already too much Protestant and Catholic blood has been spilled. Far too much Irish blood has drenched the soil of Ulster, and too many British soldiers have been killed in the crossfire. Some of them were from Liverpool, including the young man who was so brutally and cowardly murdered last weekend.
  Only the extremists have anything to fear from the White Paper, be they the Provisional IRA or the Protestant backwoodsmen. History has often thrown up little men with delusions of self-grandeur, and I refer now to the one I call King Billy Craig, the self-ordained Fϋhrer of the Protestant hardliners. Mr. Craig would still deny to the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland the human rights, the civil liberties and the natural justice which
  1636
  Hitler denied to Jewish people in Germany before the war. He has donned the mantle of Carson as the High Priest of Protestant supremacy and the Orange Order. There is little difference between his bully boys of today and Hitler's thugs in pre-war Germany.
  It is to be hoped that the majority of Protestant people in Ulster will firmly reject the leadership offered by Mr. Craig and will accept the moderate proposals of the White Paper. I hope, too, that Catholics will accept the proposals as a constructive and positive effort to bring about a just and compassionate society in Northern Ireland.
  I conclude by referring specifically to page 8, paragraphs 26 and 27 of the White Paper. Paragraph 26 deals with the serious lack of amenities in the Province. Paragraph 27 says:
  "In any part of the world an inadequate social environment breeds boredom, aimless-ness, alienation from society, vandalism and even violence. In Northern Ireland all these evils may be compounded by high unemployment and deep political resentments. The need is to create a positive community life in such areas; to do everything possible to provide other outlets than violence for the energies of the people; to demonstrate that authority can be a helpful as well as a coercive influence on their lives."
  With this in mind, I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will consider again the early ending of the Army occupation of Roger Casement Park. I have raised this subject in recent weeks in Oral and Written Questions, and I have received representations from the Gaelic Athletic Association asking me to make further representations to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that it will be possible in the near future for the British Army to end its occupation. The GAA is not affiliated to any political party and does not support any one particular religion. I believe that encouragement and support for cultural and sporting activities in Northern Ireland will help in the present climate. I shall go into the Lobby tonight to support the White Paper, and I hope that it will lead to peace and sanity in Ulster.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. David James: I am happy to go along with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mr. Parry). We have had a contrast in styles, between the common sense of the hon.

  1637
  Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) and the cold logic of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I come down unhesitatingly on the side of the hon. Gentleman. He made a first-class speech; indeed, he has saved me from saying a great deal.
  I also agree with what the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) said about the Catholic grievances, and what an eye-opener they were to him. There was an honourable tradition in the House of Commons that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, and that is why hon. Members were unaware of what had been swept under the carpet.
  In the 1959–64 Parliament we had the most high-falutin' body, the all-party, all-religions, ecumenical affairs committee, of which, strangely enough, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)—an Orangeman— and I—a Roman Catholic—were joint secretaries. None of this information reached us. If it had, my hon. and gallant Friend would have been the first to let me know that there were sources of grievance.
  It should be recognised both in the North and in the South that successive British Governments have gone to colossal lengths once the problem was made plain to them. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) brought in the British Army—incidentally, at the request of the Catholic heir-archy—to protect Catholic lives and property, and the Army did much to see that the Catholics were looked after, although, I am afraid, this was sadly unrequited by subsequent events when the Catholic community started to shoot the British soldiers who had been brought there for their defence.
  This Government had the great courage to suspend Stormont and start the search for a brand new formula to get away from the past. Both parties can legitimately claim credit for the White Paper which has been produced by my right hon. Friend and handsomely supported by the hon. Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and Salford, West (Mr. Orme).
  The White Paper represents to the Catholic community an enormous
  1638
  opportunity to make a go of it. The Catholic community must co-operate with this deal, because it may well be the last opportunity they have. To cooperate with this deal means not only supporting Westminster in what will be an overwhelming vote in favour of the White Paper; it will involve stopping petty pinpricks like rent and rates strikes for people who do not mind drawing supplementary benefit. It will involve leadership from the clergy and others in ensuring that the Catholic community gets out of its perpetual sulk and participates in community affairs. I do not care whether people are Republican—that is a perfectly respectable thing to be—or Unionist. No one can hope to see a United Ireland without a united Ulster, and no one can see a united Ulster unless both communities make the White Paper work.
  This border talk is no longer relevant to the problems that Northern Ireland faces. We must pray to God that we can ensure that the White Paper works, that the Catholics take their rightful place in community, and that suspicion of them by the Protestants is thereby diminished.
  As a convert, I can never underestimate the extent to which some people genuinely feel that the IRA is the armed wing of the Catholic Church. Of course, it is not true, but much has happened to give credence to that view. The only way the Catholics can make the community work is by giving the lie to that view, particularly if they can get much stronger leadership from the hierarchy.
  I take a sanguine view of the White Paper. In my view it is a courageous White Paper. It demands the support, particularly, of the Catholic community, for whom so much has been sacrificed.
  I thought that a most helpful suggestion was made by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), when he referred to a council of the British Isles. I suspect that, even though we are on different sides of the divide, my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and I would agree on one thing, namely, that at the end of the day, and in EEC conditions, he would like to see a United Ireland united with the United Kingdom in the EEC. That, I believe, is a formula which could bring us all together.
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: I preface what will need to be very brief remarks by associating myself with the tribute paid to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and, not least, to the Leader of the Opposition. I do so as I wish to make it clear that I am second to none in my admiration of what the Secretary of State is trying to do and how he is trying to do it. But it may well turn out, despite the generous speech to which we have just listened, that it will prove to be impossible. At the same time, sooner or later it seems to me that the kind of solution described in the White Paper had to be tried, and better it should be tried now than in another two or three years' time after more deaths, more violence and more destruction.
  The one aspect of the White Paper that may be unique and the one success it already has is that it has enabled a group of politicians and people who have a justifiable and dreadful reputation for looking backwards to concentrate their minds upon looking forward at least a little in the context of the White Paper. It is quite possible that the proposals will not work. I personally am very doubtful whether they will. It is even more unlikely that they would deliver the goods many wish to see delivered.
  I have never accepted the argument that all that was needed in Northern Ireland was to prevent violence. Violence has its causes, and had there been some earlier recognition of the justifiable demands of the civil rights movement I believe we would not be in the situation we are in today. One welcomes the fact that solutions are now forthcoming, but it is a great tragedy that they have come forward rather late in the day.
  The House may recall that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and I at an earlier stage sought the agreement of the House to the adoption of a Bill of Rights in relation to Northern Ireland. There is within this White Paper a similar proposal, though it goes by a different name, and that is welcome. But my doubts are that, even if there is a successful election to a more representative Assembly, the same people may tend to want to go on
  1640
  in the same old way. Even when one talks of power sharing, undoubtedly the majority view will prevail. If that majority shows the same determination to have things all its own way as it has shown over the past 50 years, obviously the proposals are doomed to failure.
  I rise in particular to enter one caveat about the White Paper generally. I wish it success, and I have said that I believe that these proposals had to come. But I for one, and there are others of us, find it extremely difficult to go into the Lobby in support of the Government's proposals. Although the White Paper has been correctly described as a package, and it is right to say that one does not endorse it in every detail, there are two cardinal objections which some of us hold to what it contains.
  Paragraph 58 envisages the introduction of the Diplock proposals in separate legislation. Many of us have made our views known about detention without trial and the abandonment of proper judicial processes. It may be said that this will be the subject of separate legislation, but the second and insuperable objection is the far-too-absolute and seemingly permanent declaration in paragraph 32. It seems to say that, come what may, whatever the events, whatever the developments, whilst the majority of the people want Northern Ireland to stay within the United Kingdom, that shall be the position.
  Thus far I would accept some of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). While one wants to respect the majority wishes, there may well come a time when events have developed so seriously, where there is such hostility and concern throughout the United Kingdom as a whole, that it might be unreasonable to be held totally committed to Northern Ireland virtually for ever remaining part of the United Kingdom.
  There could be a situation in which elected political representatives saw a better chance of solution with some form of independent Northern Ireland. I understand the dilemma of the Secretary of State, because if he had omitted any reference to this he would have been in difficulties. There is also the fact that the commitment is so total and absolute that I believe that in voting for the White Paper we are committing ourselves

  1641
  to something we may subsequently regret. We may feel that in the light of developments it is a pledge that cannot be honoured.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Coombs: When one looks back to the 1920s and realises that De Valera was once elected to the Northern Ireland Parliament for what is now part of the Down, South constituency one appreciates how close are the fortunes of both parts of that small island and how the divisions have developed and widened in succeeding years. Under PR in the 1921 General Election, Sinn Fein and the Nationalist Party won 12 seats, and roughly the same number in 1925. I wonder, if PR had continued, whether the divisions would have been as they are now or whether they would have healed.
  Of course, the Unionist arguments against PR at that time were that it would lead to a multiplicity of parties, but it is precisely the consequence of one-party rule that has engendered such bitterness and strife. The fact that this has changed is to my mind the most important single contribution to peace and justice.
  Nationalism will always rear its head where a substantial part of the population feels that it is not being treated fairly and lacks effective means of the democracy which is available in this country for changing that situation peacefully. Unity by consent is, of course, right but nationalism using force as its means, in the absence of consent, is fascism at its worst and utterly reprehensible.
  Unlike some other hon. Members, I think the imprecision and vagueness of the White Paper is its strength for it lays down sufficient direction to encourage participation from all sides without the rigidity which would probably frighten off one group or another. This seems to me fair so long as the Government themselves know what they mean by power sharing, which I am sure they do.
  I had intended to touch on many other points but we are short of time and many of them have been basically covered so I shall not detain the House by repeating some of the argument already made. Every hon. Member is entitled to argue the merits or demerits of the White Paper. I presume that no one would sit in this House if he did not accept the
  1642
  will of this Parliament once a decision had been taken.
  Indeed, I would go further and say that, once it has been decided, everyone has a clear responsibility to make it work. This is directed at those who talk about participating only in the elections and then say that they will make the Assembly itself unworkable. If they do that, it will be a denial of this Parliament's right to legislate in Northern Ireland, and if they deny that right why in heaven's name do they declare their loyalty to the Crown? I live in hope. I believe that moderation and good sense will prevail.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: This has been a remarkable debate, an historic debate, a constitutional debate of great magnitude. It has matched the debates in the latter part of last century and early in this century on the Irish question. Yet, as we have seen from this debate, the problem is still with us in 1973.
  It has come through from this debate, despite what has been said about support given to the military and so forth, that there is no military solution to this problem. I think Bloody Sunday and Bloody Friday made that very clear. It should also be made clear to those in Northern Ireland—and I name them—the Provisional IRA on the one side and the UVF on the other, who think that just a little push is necessary to resolve the matter in their own interests, that that little push will not resolve it politically in the way they want to see it resolved. It could push Ulster into anarchy.
  It is with this attitude that the Opposition give their support to the White Paper, not uncritically—I have one or two critical things to say—but because we are facing a situation in Northern Ireland in which, despite the dangers, I have confidence that the challenge before us is hopeful. It perhaps cannot lead to a solution of the Irish question—I do not believe this White Paper presupposes that possibility—but it could give us political stability and some form of détente which could allow the normal political forces to operate within the war-torn six counties.
  Sean O'Casey said, when referring to the Irish question many years ago in a famous play, that it is "chassis on chassis". I think we all agree that in

  1643
  many respects chaos still remains, but what encourages me—
  Mr. Powell: Translate.
  Mr. Orme: That was the way in which it was pronounced in the play. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not seen the play.
  Mr. Powell: I did not recognise the Greek.
  Mr. Orme: One of the encouraging things in this debate is that we have been able for two days rationally to discuss the proposals in the White Paper some of which, I hazard the guess, it would have been very difficult to discuss in this House only 12 months ago, let alone four years ago. We have seen agreement across the Chamber not least between the hon. Members from Northern Ireland, such as unanimous enthusiasm for elections, for instance, by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). I would not say that one or the other has been seductive to one or the other, but they at least found similar arguments on the question of elections.
  I want to deal with the contentious issues which have been raised in the debate. I deal first with the forthcoming elections. We welcome what the Secretary of State said about the Assembly elections, and we shall give all assistance possible to the passage of the necessary legislation within our parliamentary rules, allowing for the rights of hon. Members to express their views and to raise matters as they see fit. The Opposition will give as fair a passage as possible to that part of the legislation which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to bring forward first.
  On local government elections, right hon. and hon. Members from all sides have had the point put to them very firmly that to hold local government elections at this stage will hamper the political parties and pre-empt certain questions. The view has been expressed that this is basically a political issue. I respect the problem with which the Secretary of State will be confronted about the effect of any postponement on electoral officers and local government officers. However, the Assembly elections are more impor-
  1644
  tant than placating local government officers.
  In this regard I am sorry that in a television interview tonight the Prime Minister appears to have contradicted what the Secretary of State said earlier today. In reply to a question about the Assembly elections and whether the local government elections should be held before it, the Prime Minister said, "I think that we should adhere to the day which has been already arranged". I hope that the Minister of State will clarify the position. In view of what the Secretary of State said earlier today it is highly unfair to this House for the Prime Minister to be so firm on this matter in a television programme this evening. If these sensitive elections are to be given a fair wind and if it is a choice between the local government officers and the possibility of further bloodshed, clearly the Assembly elections must have priority.
  I deal now with the Sinn Fein and the Republican clubs. We have raised this matter because we want it to be clear to all people in Northern Ireland that there is no barrier. The effect on the minority community will be extremely important. I am disappointed to hear that in the course of his television interview this evening the Prime Minister appears to have pre-empted this issue as well by giving a categorical "No" when asked whether these bodies would be allowed to stand in the elections.
  We urge the people of Northern Ireland to accept that this is not a trap for those organisations. We do that not because we support them. We do not. We do it because we believe that if there is proper representation right round the spectrum we shall be able to see clearly who represents whom in Northern Ireland and because we believe that those people who carry and use guns will be brought to the reality of the ballot box if they are allowed to stand for election in open contest.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: To make this Assembly the success that we all wish it to be, does the hon. Gentleman agree that an abstentionist candidate, if elected, should be replaced immediately by the candidate with the next highest number of votes?
  Mr. Orme: We ought to wait and see how many abstentionist candidates are elected before starting to judge what to

  1645
  do with them. Like everyone else, I can only guess what will happen. But I do not believe that abstentionist candidates will hold the balance in the Assembly. But again I am disappointed that the Prime Minister has pre-empted this matter in the course of a television programme this evening.
  I move on to the problem of oaths. We all welcome what the Secretary of State said earlier today. I underline what some of my hon. Friends have said about the Flags and Emblems Act. Why cannot the tricolour or the Red Hand of Ulster be displayed if people want to display them? I am convinced that if we take away that restriction much of the clamour for display will disappear. We know that when a thing is banned it becomes a great joy or attraction. I saw that happen in the Bogside in 1969 when the cry was to bring out the tricolour and to march with it. Much of the heat of the situation will be removed if people can freely display the emblems and flags that they desire to display. I know that many people on this side of the Irish Sea do not understand the importance of this freedom in the Irish context. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter.
  An issue which has dominated the debate is that of Ulster's representation. I think that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) went to the heart of the matter when he pointed out that increased representation would decrease the Irish dimension. He talked about two communities.
  The right hon. Gentleman found himself very much in favour with the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster, who made a brilliant analytical speech yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman made such a speech this afternoon, but it was a speech of demolition. He put forward not one positive proposal in substitution of any section of the White Paper. He was a great deal more arrogant than one would expect. We expect his cold logic, but he appeared to tinge it with an element of arrogance which does not match the situation which we now face.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster did a similar demolition job. Both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend must be asked
  1646
  what we put in its place if we destroy the White Paper before it is given a chance. Do we force people into a united Ireland? Do we impose a form of direct rule? Do we transfer people from parts of Northern Ireland into another community? These are questions that must be answered. The delicate issue of the balance of power that could arise in this House has been discussed. There is the further point that increased membership will only transfer the problem increasingly on to the Floor of this House.
  We are creating a form of devolution and self-government far beyond anything that existed under Stormont. In consequence, increased representation will not resolve the problem. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) spoke about Stormont, but there were double standards before 1969 when the Ruling of Mr. Speaker prevented us from even asking a Question about Ulster. Many Ulster hon. Members can remember that. Ulster Members at that time could take part in any debate however small and however big, from the boundaries of local authorities to foreign affairs. That was accepted. However, when we tried to raise issues relating to Ulster we were bitterly opposed. It was not until my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) brought the other side of the story to the House that we began to have a more balanced picture.
  The issue of the 12 Members is linked with the question of power sharing in the Assembly and the sort of Assembly it will be. Everyone wants elections yet we are told that some who want them do not want the Assembly to work. The hon. Member for Antrim, North gave us a brilliant discourse about how the two ends might come together to defeat the centre. He saw some form of alliance between my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Ulster and Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) and himself. Things may be a little different. We may find that once this Assembly is elected there will be groups of people who will want to achieve things for Northern Ireland.
  The Northern Ireland people have just voted in the border poll. It was a large vote. The minority abstained in a positive sense. Now we are to have elections for the Assembly. I am not

  1647
  sure that the people in Northern Ireland will allow anyone to sabotage the Assembly once they have been elected to it. I am convinced that they will say, "There are a lot of problems, economic and social, which are a disgrace in this part of the United Kingdom and have been a disgrace for 50 years". In these circumstances the Assembly can work. If these groups hold back, if they are destructive, they can make it unworkable. But when the problem comes back to this House the choice may not be a wide one for those who have made it unworkable. They will bear a heavy responsibility. The British people will not take kindly to this being sabotaged before it gets off the ground.
  The 1949 Act was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford in a moderate and pertinent speech. It is linked with the question of the attitude of the British people. Throughout this emergency the British people have been extremely tolerant, indeed passive. They have allowed the politicians and the Army to get on with the problem Despite the casualties in the Army, which have affected many of us in our constituencies, the British people have stood back and said, "We will see whether there is some form of political solution".
  Any further bombing episodes in London could bring about a change of attitude. I remember, as a young person in 1940, the effects of the terrorist attacks in Coventry and the resulting deaths. One of the first results of that was to turn the British trade union movement against the Irish cause which it had supported for many years. We were then involved in a major war. The same thing could happen again with disastrous results, not only for the North and the South of Ireland but for the rest of the United Kingdom. We cannot contract out. I do not believe that a vote on this issue is the solution. The Provisional IRA and genuine Republicans have also said that the people of all of Ireland should have a ballot. It is now recognised in Dublin, by both communities in the North, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, that the burning issue is not unification, however strongly and passionately feelings on that issue may be held. What is needed is some
  1648
  form of political activity in the Six Counties.
  I turn to the question of the Irish dimension. This is left pretty vague— and I think this is fair. This has to be discussed. The hon. Member for Antrim. North said that the first thing which an Irish Government would want to discuss was the border. I am sure that he and his friends, if elected to the Assembly, can deal with that matter at an All-Ireland Council. I am sure the hon. Member for Antrim, North is not frightened by politicians from south of the border. I am not saying that they would be frightened of him either.
  The Council should have an open agenda and matters should be freely and frankly discussed. There are a lot of arguments to be faced on economic, social, cultural and religious matters. Much of the present problem is due to these matters having always been in closed, confined communities. This has to be broken down. I can see this Irish dimension—this Council of Ireland—playing an important part.
  The Council could discuss the question of policing. I appreciate the difficulties about those areas where police are not very welcome. This applies not only to Roman Catholic areas but to Protestant areas as well. The White Paper implies, in paragraph 112(c), that this issue could be raised within the confines of the Council. Could not policing at least be ex-amined by that body?
  I am pleased that the Special Powers Act is going. Some of my hon. Friends are concerned about internment without trial and I am not happy about it. I also want to see an end to the civil rights problem as soon as possible and to have some political stability and peace in Northern Ireland.
  So far as economic, social and cultural issues are concerned, I do not accept the argument that there are two nations. There are people with different cultural and religious backgrounds in Northern Ireland, but this applies in this country and many others. There are countries with far bigger problems, such as the United States and the southern States of Africa.
  In Northern Ireland there are people who want unity with this country and those who want the Irish dimension of

  1649
  a united Ireland. But the economic undercurrent throughout the six counties is of bad housing, massive unemployment and job discrimination. The worst aspect of society in Northern Ireland is in job discrimination. People use the factor of which school they attended to protect their jobs. This has to be removed.
  I am encouraged to see that things are breaking up in a political sense. The Catholic community is no longer a unified nationalist community, while the Protestant community is removing divisions and throwing up its own leaders. People will begin to look at things in an economic sense. When working-class Roman Catholic and Protestants get together, they will find that there is far more to unite them on social issues than to divide them on religious issues.
  Not long ago I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), who speaks with great emphasis and knowledge on this matter. He talked about the divisions and the ghettos that exist in Northern Ireland as if they were there in perpetuity. But they are not. There are some mixed communities in Northern Ireland. They are middle-class communities. We have to mix the working class communities. A start must be made on massive rehousing, and not on the type of dwellings put up in Ballymurphy and Andersonstown. We want a far higher standard than obtains there.
  The idea that the two cultures keep the people divided is a myth which we have to break down. We want work to go to Northern Ireland. Cannot we give the new Assembly more power in this respect? Why do we not give it power to run public industries on its own on an economic basis and to bring work to the areas which need it, particularly labour-intensive industries? Why cannot that be done? I say that unashamedly as a Socialist. It would provide an answer in the long run to the problem of coming together on economic and social issues, allowing for the difficulties and the time it will take.
  We must get a regrouping and get rid of tribal parties. Hon. Members on both sides of this House have experimented with that idea. I ask peopde with responsibility, such as the hon. Member for Antrim, North for instance, not to group people together into these tribal cabals
  1650
  but to lead the people. The hon. Member for Antrim, North has discussed these issues with me. He appreciates the social and economic issues on which he has supported the Labour Party. Leadership is his job in Northern Ireland, as it is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, to try to build up, along with the Northern Ireland Labour Party, the Alliance Party and other parties, some economic links and growth.
  Surely one of the most encouraging things in recent weeks has been the talk, however tentative, between the extremists, between prominent Catholic and Protestant politicians. That destroys the myth of two cultures, of separate entities which cannot be mixed. We do not want a division in society in which we have the statutory Catholic and the statutory Protestant, and one-third here and two-thirds there.
  I remember, when as a youngster in Manchester, my parents saying that Mr. and Mrs. So-and-So were Roman Catholics. This sort of thing was said in Liverpool, Manchester, London and Glasgow, quite freely and openly. But what has happened since the war? With the redistribution of population a new feeling has grown. This sort of thing has altered the situation.
  There is also another myth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West will agree, that "never the twain shall meet". I do not believe that there is any family, on either side, that does not have a black sheep in it in the form of a Roman Catholic or a Protestant in reverse.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I saw someone of the Sinn Fein get into serious trouble over that not long ago.
  It is this sort of approach to the White Paper, this type of new society towards which we are looking, that encourages me. It does not give me enthusiasm. I am in a sombre mood about this situation. We cannot take it lightly. What we are embarking upon in the White Paper and the subsequent legislation, the elections, the experiment with the Assembly and all the problems of the Secretary of State, will be of immense gravity. We have to give the White Paper a fair wind. Big trees grow from small acorns.
  Tonight we are talking about political decisions and how they can be arrived

  1651
  at. We have been arguing for two days —not against one another, but about how the proposals will or will not work and about whether people will or will not apply them.
  Everybody in Northern Ireland wants the elections to get started. They want to see the new Assembly set up and want once again to get the feel of politics, as I found on my visit during the border poll only a week or ten days ago. That is the hope for Ireland, and this is its chance. It is little more than that, but I hope that the White Paper and the subsequent legislation will have a fair wind. We can wish it no more than that. But a big responsibility rests on this House.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I feel sure that the whole House will want me to take up the closing words of the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Onme). We could ask no more than to adopt those words and we respect the manner in which the hon. Member expressed his views. I shall carry happily away with me the picture of a Protestant in reverse—a sort of ecclesiastical push-me-pull-me.
  We felt that it would be most convenient during this two-day debate to divide the various subjects between the Ministers in the Department. Apart from the broad opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, many of the constitutional matters were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, at the end of yesterday's debate, my fellow Minister of State the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) dealt with the important economic matters.
  At the outset of my remarks I wish to deal with two matters which come within my responsibility and which have featured frequently in the debate. I refer to the question of job discrimination which the hon. Member for Salford, West, quite rightly mentioned in his remarks. This important subject was dealt with my the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) yesterday. He, understandably, wanted the subject of a Bill of Rights linked with consideration of the Diplock Report. My
  1652
  hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) also made an interesting and penetrating speech about this subject yesterday, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
  Detailed proposals are beginning to emerge in terms of the White Paper, and since I have been fairly closely associated with them it might be helpful to say a few words about this subject in opening. The measures now proposed for the private sector will complement those already taken to promote equal opportunity in the public sector of employment in Northern Ireland. Those measures are contained in paragraphs 97 and 98 of the White Paper.
  Put shortly, every public authority or body in Northern Ireland is required to declare its commitment to equality of employment opportunity without regard to religious or political considerations and to adopt a code of fair employment procedure approved by the Community Relations Commission.
  Allegations of job discrimination on religious or political grounds have not been confined to the public sector. Such discrimination is said also to be practised in private employment. While most of the allegations are directed at the majority community, some are also levelled at the minority. This affects all sections in Northern Ireland. It is true, as so often in matters of this kind, that the evidence is difficult to come by, but the volume of complaint over many years shows how widespread is the belief that discrimination exists and how strong is the sense of grievance which this belief nourishes.
  We have been concerned to make progress in a sensitive and difficult area, bearing in mind the many factors involved, such as the existence of segregated housing and schools, the location of factories in one community or another, and the understandable reluctance of some people to cross community boundaries in times of extreme tension and the risk of intimidation in various forms. These are all matters which, in an economic context, my hon. Friend the Minister of State commented upon last night. All these and other factors bear on the problem, and in their own way may be just as potent as discriminatory practices.

  1653
  Nevertheless, the problem must be tackled, as the White Paper says; social justice must not only be done but be seen to be done in future, for the sake of all who live and work in Northern Ireland.
  In the public sector the Government can operate directly on an issue of this sort but in the private sector, with its multiplicity of trades and industries, its great variety of plants and establishments, the Government, frankly, can make effective progress only with the active support and co-operation of both employers and employees, and particularly of the representative bodies of both sides of industry, which must give the necessary lead.
  That was why a representative joint Working Party was set up—hon. Members will find it set out in detail in paragraph 100 of the White Paper—to consider and report on the problem. I am the present Chairman of that Working Party and will take a moment or two to report on the progress made so far.
  We decided at the outset, very much in line with the spirit of this debate, not to investigate allegations of past discrimination so much, but, instead, to concentrate on measures to counter such discrimination from any quarter in the future. But the Working Party has not merely set itself the task—however important that task may be—of devising effective anti-discrimination machinery; its essential aim is positive rather than negative, namely to promote full equality in all aspects of employment, particularly within the private sector.
  Against that background, let me comment briefly on each of the three measures outlined in the paragraph to which I have already referred, which constitute a single package.
  First, as in the public sector, there will be a declaration of principle and intent which will be signed jointly by the representative bodies of both sides of industry and to which individual companies and trade unions will also be asked to subscribe. If hon. Members are interested in the full text of the declaration recommended by my working party, they will find it in the answer to a Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) on 22nd March. I regard this declaration as a significant step in itself.
  1654
  It is much more than a gesture. It is the essential foundation for the proposals which follow and a clear earnest of the intention of both sides of industry in Northern Ireland to tackle the problem of religious or political discrimination at root. I believe that a very short time ago such a declaration would not have been possible.
  Secondly, as in the public sector, there will be a code of employment practice prepared by the appropriate Ministry in consultation with both sides of industry, then to be issued as a guide to those concerned with recruitment and employment in the private sector. Not of itself having the force of law, but its observance in practice will constitute prima facie evidence that the company concerned is implementing in good faith the principles of fairness and impartiality embodied in the declaration, just as failure to do so will constitute prima facie evidence to the contrary
  Thirdly—and this is where the working party breaks new ground—a fair employment agency will be established. It will be given powers not only to investigate individual complaints of discrimination, which will be made unlawful, but also— and I say to the House that this is crucially important in Northern Ireland terms—to investigate patterns of employment in particular companies or industries or among categories of workers. In this respect the agency's powers will be more comprehensive than those possessed by many similar agencies elsewhere.
  Where, as a result of its investigation, the agency is satisfied that a company's policies and practices are not such as to promote full equality of employment opportunity, the agency will seek to have these policies and practices amended voluntarily by the company. It will initially rely upon conciliation. But if these procedures fail to secure the desired result—in what I trust will be only a few cases—it will have recourse, as a last resort, to the courts, which will be empowered to order a range of civil remedies.
  These three interdependent recommendations constitute, I suggest, a comprehensive set of proposals. Details are now being worked out. The committee is at work on its draft report. There must follow urgent and widespread consultations on its recommendations, and in the

  1655
  light of those consultations the Government will present proposals to Parliament for legislation. In due course, therefore, the House will have the opportunity of considering them in detail. But the point I want to make is that the aim of full equality of employment opportunity which the working party has set itself rests on the concept of an open, free and just society in which no individual will be denied the opportunity of employment or of promotion because of extraneous considerations which have nothing to do with his personal capacities. That aim and that vision are fully compatible with determined steps through the programme of "affirmative action"—that is the phrase used by the working party.
  In part, these steps will call for action by industry, and in part for action by the trade unions. It should not be overlooked that in taking part in these discussions the trade unions, too, have understood what responsibilities will rest later upon them. But they also imply action over a much wider area to redress the legacy of the past, so that true equality and true respect, among men of all faiths or of none, will take firm root and will flourish. Because these are practical proposals to fulfil some of the hopes rightly expressed throughout the debate, I thought it right to say a few words about them at the start of my speech.
  I move now to another subject which has been mentioned many times in the debate. It started yesterday with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) taking, from a common church position, diametrically opposite views. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made reference to it today. I am referring to the question generally called "segregated education". It was also referred to yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winter-ton) although—if he will allow me to put it so—in rather less measured terms.
  I do not for one moment underestimate the importance of creating in the young people of Northern Ireland a greater sense of community. But in that context it does sometimes seem to me that people over-estimate the contribution that education by itself can make. It is surely an over-simplification of a complex situa-
  1656
  tion to suggest that if segregated education—I take the phrase in common use— were to be abolished forthwith, this in itself would produce the answer we are all searching for.
  The cruel facts of the present situation in Northern Ireland are that people are segregating themselves, not less but more. Measured in terms of where they live, people are drawing apart. The result of this movement is that the denominational character of a school in a particular area will be determined not by the organisational structure of the schools system but rather by the church allegiance of the area in which it is situated.
  In theory, segregated schooling could be abolished tomorrow, but a school in the Ardoyne would as surely be attended by Catholic children taught by Catholic teachers as would its counterpart in the Shankill be attended by Protestants taught by Protestant teachers. To talk in these circumstances of "bussing" children, as is sometimes suggested in educational circles, is simply to misunderstand the realities of the situation on the ground.
  Furthermore, it must be said that in other parts of the United Kingdom we both recognise and support church involvement in education. This church involvement, far from being limited to the Roman Catholic Church, includes major contributions by other churches. If we on this side of the water recognise the rights of parents to have their children educated in a school run by a particular faith, we cannot easily deny the same right to parents in Northern Ireland.
  But, that having been said and that point having been made, there are surely important ways in which the education service in Northern Ireland can contribute greatly to the spirit of community of which I have spoken. First—and this has so far not been mentioned—it can do so in the training of teachers. It is encouraging that, for example, in the new University of Coleraine, teachers of both denominations are at present being trained alongside one another and are subsequently getting jobs in their respective schools. I greatly hope to see this develop in terms of in-service training. I think of a recent visit I paid to the Queen's University where a group of primary school teachers were having a month's sabbatical together.

  1657
  Thirdly, the greater part of our further and higher education is already interdenominational in Northern Ireland, and personally I have hopes that in certain areas of Northern Ireland it will be possible to move towards a greater share of course provision at sixth form level, which itself crosses denominational lines.
  I must deal with a point put forcibly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone who, as the House will recall, yesterday raised the question of nursery schools. There are at present 24 such nursery schools and 18 nursery classes in primary schools in Northern Ireland together catering for about 1,500 pupils. A recently introduced special capital programme in excess of £1 million will provide 50 additional such nursery schools. While for the same educational reasons as apply on this side of the water I should expect future provision to be concentrated largely on nursery classes rather than nursery schools. I share the view expressed in the debate that this considerable nursery school programme would be a useful way of crossing denominational lines. I hope that all who are involved will listen again to the arguments in this debate which have been expressed in this sense.
  There is a development in education mentioned in the White Paper, and referred to at times in the debate, which is of far greater significance in the educational world than perhaps we have appreciated. Next Octover five Education and Library Boards—and the library part of that work in itself is important—will replace local education authorities in Northern Ireland, and for the first time representatives both of Roman Catholic land of Protestant schools will sit together as full members of the boards. The boards are as yet only partially constituted and will be completely so only when joined by representatives from district councils elected in May. I can tell the House, however, that immense trouble has been taken by the present Ministers in appointing the partially constituted boards so that they can be as representative and fairly balanced as possible.
  This development may at first sight seem unimportant in the context of the White Paper as a whole, but as one coming to this work from the Department of Education for England and Wales, I noticed that one of the striking differ-
  1658
  ences was the comparative lack of contact on organisational education matters between local authorities, on the one hand, and church authorities on the other. This gap, I hope, will increasingly be bridged so that in a working situation men and women of different faiths with a common concern for educating young people will work around the same table.
  It is not only in education that the area board organisation comes into force. It also comes into effect in health as well, where we bring together, in October, health and personal social services in a way which is ahead of other parts of the United Kingdom. Incidentally, it shows, in answer to some of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland constituencies, that we do not necessarily automatically and slavishly follow what is done on the other side of the Irish Channel. The point I make is that both these developments —and there are others, but I take them from my own personal experience—show where reorganisation, and preparations for reorganisation, are very well advanced. The staff are moving into new positions and headquarters are being located and proceeded with. The fusing together of all the services moves ahead. The departmental reorganisations are in hand, and hon. Members will recall that there were at least as many criticisms in Northern Ireland as ever there were of Central Government.
  When, therefore, my right hon. Friend points out to the House the problems of postponing the local government elections, he is not merely dealing with a situation which faces all hon. Members here of—if I may put it—straightforward local government elections. He has to face the suggested postponement of the entire Macrory reorganisation proposals, which depend for their support, on 1st October, on the infusion of local government representatives so that they may be effective. No right hon. Member is more entitled to have his anxieties listened to with respect, for no one is more receptive to other people's views than my right hon. Friend.
  The problems which my right hon. Friend posed earlier in the debate, and which still have not been fully understood by the House, stem from the total reorganisation of the local government structure which, if it were postponed, would have the gravest consequences for

  1659
  local administration in Northern Ireland. It would postpone the kind of development which I have outlined and which is in line with the community work to which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition looked forward to in order to bring members of the different communities round the same table—something which I am anxious to see.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: We always listen to the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers, and I agree that to postpone the elections would be difficult. Have the Government made up their mind on this issue? The hon. Gentleman is speaking as though he is considering the problems on behalf of his right hon. Friend. At six o'clock this evening the Prime Minister made a statement on television that he had made up his mind and that the elections would not be deferred.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I am asking the hon. Gentleman to read my right hon. Friend's answer in the whole. I give him the absolute assurance that we shall take account of the views expressed in the debate, but I am as entitled as he is to put counter-arguments before the House, particularly as no decision has been announced on this matter. My right hon. Friend is considering all the points of view that have been expressed in the debate.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: We do not want what has been a good debate to degenerate into a farce. We understood from the Secretary of State that he would consider everything that was said. At 6 o'clock this evening what was obviously a recorded programme was put out from Downing Street to Ulster announcing firm decisions on things which we understood the Secretary of State proposed to consider. Does the right hon. Gentleman still intend to consider them and overrule what the Prime Minister said, or has the Prime Minister pre-empted the debate?
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I should like the debate to continue in the way that it has so far, and I say categorically that no decision has been made. I say that with authority. We shall take note of the points of view that have been expressed, but I am entitled to put to the House the essential difficulty which is far more ex-
  1660
  treme than the simple one of local government reorganisation. This is not a narrow point.
  Rev. Ian Paisley Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sorry, but I must get on with my speech. I mean no discourtesy at all to my hon. Friend. I have given way twice in the last two minutes.
  The proposals which have been put before the House in the White Paper should be looked at in totality. They rest upon no purpose more determined than the restoration of the rule of law at present upheld by the police and the Army. When I hear discussions in the House about the rule of law, I sometimes wonder whether we fully realise the professionalism that is needed by an army which has to fight a battle within the law.
  If one has discussed these matters in what passes for a barrack room and has been out with men who can at any moment be shot in the street, one realises two things. First, we must make changes in the administration of the law to deal with intimidation, and secondly we must retain detention with trial. It is not detention without trial but detention with trial.—[HON MEMBERS: "No."]—Yes, indeed it is so, for all the reasons so strongly urged by Diplock.
  The passage contained in the White Paper rests upon a declaration that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom so long as the majority of her people wish it. It rests upon the major constitutional Bill which is foreshadowed within it, leading to an Assembly elected by a method calculated to give all law-abiding opinion a chance of expression.
  It follows, we trust, that consultations with parties in the Assembly will lead to the devolution of powers within the terms of the White Paper, including the concept that the Executive can no longer be based on a single party if that party draws its support and its elected representation virtually entirely from one community, and including the consideration of procedures of the Assembly which might in certain circumstances include weighted voting on certain matters. It includes a system of functional committees associating a representational cross-section of

  1661
  the Assembly with the work of the Department.
  I have said before on the area board structure, and I say again on the central structure, that the importance of bringing people together in a working situation cannot be over-estimated. It is not government by committee. It is a functional committee structure. It rests upon a division. clearly defined as never before, between accepted, reserved and transferred powers. It rests upon a large measure of freedom to determine expenditure priorities such as has never before been seen in Northern Ireland. It rests upon the safeguards and promises of a
  charter of human rights and the abolition of job discrimination in the private sector. It hopefully leads to institutional arrangements for consultation and co-operation between the North and the South.
  No one of its authors would claim of the White Paper that it is perfect, but the proposals contained in it, taken together, are proposals that offer a constructive way forward whereby both communities can come together in peace.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 13, Noes 332.

  Division No. 92.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Bell, Ronald

  Maude, Angus

  Wilkinson, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Mills, Stratlon (Belfast, N.)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Cordle, John

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Powell, Rt. Hn J. Enoch

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Soref, Harold

  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster and

  Maginnis, John E.

  Mr. James Molyneaux.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Fox, Marcus

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Cooke, Robert

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Coombs, Derek

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Astor, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Crltchley, Julian

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Crouch, David

  Goodhart, Philip

  Batsford, Brian

  Crowder, F. P.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Gorst, John

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Davidson, Arthur

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Benyon, W

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Bitten, John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. Jack

  Gray, Hamish

  Blaker, Peter

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Green, Alan

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Grieve, Percy

  Body, Richard

  Dean, Paul

  Griggiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Booth, Albert

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury, St. Edmunds)

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Grylls, Michael

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Bowden, Andrew

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Gurden, Harold

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Bray, Ronald

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hamilton Michael (Salisbury)

  Brewis, John

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hamilton, Willilam (Fife, W.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hamling, William

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Driberg, Tom

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hardy Peter

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

  Dunn, James A.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Harrison, Col, Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Buchan, Norman

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Harrison, Walter (WaKefield)

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

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buck, Antony

  Emery, Peter

  Hattersley, Roy

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  English, Michael

  Havers, Sir Michael

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hawkins, Paul

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Faulds, Andrew

  Hayhoe Barney

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

  Fell, Anthony

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Heffer Eric S

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fidler, Michael

  Hiley, Joseph

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

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

  Channon, Paul

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Holland, Philip

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hordern, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Hornby, Richard

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Foster, Sir John

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fowler, Norman

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Silverman, Julius

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mendeison, John

  Simeons, Charles

  Hunt, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Millan, Bruce

  Skinner, Dennis

  hemonger, T. L.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spearing, Nigel

  James, David

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

  Spence, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sproat, lain

  Jessel, Toby

  Moate, Roger

  Stallard, A. W.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Money, Ernie

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Jopling, Michael

  Montgomery. Fergus

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  More, Jasper

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Judd, Frank

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Strang, Gavin

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Sutclitfe, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Morrison, Charles

  Tapsell, Peter

  Kerr, Russell

  Murton, Oscar

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Neave, Airey

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

  Kimball, Marcus

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tebbit, Norman

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Orme, Stanley

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Kirk, Peter

  Osborn, John

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

  Knox, David

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Lamborn, Harry

  Page, john (Harrow, W.)

  Tilney, John

  Lambton, Lord

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Tinn, James

  Lamont, Norman

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Tope, Graham

  Lane, David

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Peart Rt. Hn. Fred

  Trew, Peter

  Latham, Arthur

  Peel, Sir John

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Lawson, George

  Percival, Ian

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  perry, Ernest G.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Leonard, Dick

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  price, David (Eastleigh)

  Waddington, David

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Loveridge, John

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Walters, Dennis

  Luce, R. N.

  Raison, Timothy

  Ward, Dame Irene

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  MacArthur, Ian

  Redmond, Robert

  Watkins, David

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  McLaren, Martin

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  McManus, Frank

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wiggin, Jerry

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Richard, Ivor

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchln)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Roper, John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Madel, David

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Rost, Peter

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Marquand, David

  Royle, Anthony

  Worsley, Marcus

  Marsden, F.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Scott, Nicholas

  Younger, Hn. George

  Marten, Neil

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Mather, Carol

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Maudling, Rt. Hr. Reginald

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Mawby, Ray

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 5.

  Division No. 93.]

  AYES

  [10.13 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Batslord, Brian

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Bowden, Andrew

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Benyon, W.

  Bray, Ronald

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Bitten, John

  Brewis, John

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Blaker, Peter

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Astor, John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Body, Richard

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Booth, Albert

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

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Boscawen, Hn. Robert

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Buchan, Norman

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, H. j

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

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Buck, Antony

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mellish, Rt Hn Robert

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hamling, William

  Mendelson, John

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hardy, Peter

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Harrison, Brian (Maidon)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Carlisle Mark

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Carmichael Neil

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Carr Rt. Hn. Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Channon, Paul

  Hattersley, Roy

  Moate, Roger

  Chapman, Sydney

  Havers, Sir Micheal

  Money, Ernie

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hawkins, Paul

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Chichester-Clark, R

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Churchill, W. S.

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  More, Jasper

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Cockeram, Eric

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

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol. S.)

  Holland, Phillip

  Morrison Charles

  Concannon, J. D.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Murton, Oscar

  Cooke, Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Neave, Airey

  coombs, Derek

  Hornby, Richard

  Noble, Rt. Hn.Micheal

  Hornsby-smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Partricls

  O'Halloran, Micheal

  Cooper, A. E.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Onslow, Cranley

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Orme, Stanley

  Costain, A. P.

  Howell Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Osborn, John

  Crtichley, Julian

  Hughes, Mark Durham)

  Owen, Idris (stockport, N.)

  Crouch, David

  Hunt John

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack

  James, David

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Wood(ord)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Jessel, Toby

  Peel, Sir John

  Dean, Paul

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Percival, Ian

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jopling, Michael

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

  Judd, Frank

  Pink, R. Bonne

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Douglas-Home. Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Kellett-Bowman. Mrs. Elaine

  priOr, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kerr, Russell

  pym, RT. Hn. Francis

  Driberg, Tom

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Raison, Timothy

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Dunn, James A.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Redmond, Robert

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Reedi Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Elliot, Capt. Waiter (Carshalton)

  Kirk, Peter

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'lle-upon-Tyne.N.)

  Knox, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Emery, Peter

  Lamborn, Harry

  English, Michael

  Lambton, lord

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lamont, Norman

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lane, David

  Richard, Ivor

  Fell, Anthony

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fidler, Michael

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Fedrick

  Roper, John

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Ross, Rt, Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Leonard, Dic.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rost, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lioyd, Ian (P' tsm'th, Langstone)

  Royle, Anthony

  Fortescue, Tim

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Foster,Sir John

  Loverridge, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fowler, Norman

  Luce, R.n.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Fox, Marcus

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Shaw, Micheal (Sc'b'gh & Whitby

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

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sherby, Micheal

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stephey)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Makenzie, Gregor

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

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mclaren, Martin

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Silverman Julius

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Simeons, Charles

  Glyn Dr. Alan

  Macmlllan,Rt.Hn.Maurlce(Farnham)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Godber Rt Hn J B

  McNalr-Wilson Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Goodhart Philip

  McNalr-Wilson Patrick (New Forest)

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mlngtom

  Goodhew, Victor

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Gorst, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Spence, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Madel, David

  Sproat, lain

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

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

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Gray, Hamish

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Grieve, Percy

  Marquand, David

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marsden, F.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Strang, Gavin

  Grylls, Michael

  Marten, Neil

  Stultaford, Dr. Tom

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Mather, Carol

  Sutcliffe, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mawby, ray

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  1666

  1667

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

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Vickers, Dams Joan

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Waddington, David

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

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

  Walters, Dennis

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Worsley, Marcus

  Tilney, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Tinn, James

  Watkins, David

  Younger, Hn. George

  Tope, Graham

  Wells, John (Maldstone)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Trew, Peter

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Urwin, T. W.

  Wilkinson, John

  NOES

  Molyneaux, James

  Wellbeloved, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr, James Kilfedder and

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Rev. Ian Paisley.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the White Paper on Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals (Command Paper No. 5259).

  NORTHERN IRELAND (FIREARMS)
  10.25 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
  That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
  This Order in Council extends existing controls over the legal possession of firearms, and modifies the conditions under which registered firearms dealers may operate. The order was made under the urgent procedure provided for by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, because the Government considered that in the interests of public safety these new measures should come into force without delay.
  Until recently, it has been possible to say that licensed firearms have not been used in security incidents, and are not a security threat. It is still true to say that the vast majority of shooting incidents in Northern Ireland involve illegal firearms, and I am glad to say that the security forces have had great success with arms searches. They have recovered 333 firearms since 1st January. But in certain incidents, licensed firearms have been used for illegal purposes and there have been raids on firearms dealers. It has therefore become necessary to ask Parliament for powers to give the police stricter control.
  The general principles governing the grant of firearms certificates have not been altered—that is, the applicant must show good reason for acquiring the firearm, he must not be unfitted to hold it and he must be able to have it in his possession without danger to the public safety and peace.
  The police are, however, being given greater powers to refuse a firearm certificate. Article 3(2) of this order gives the police discretion whether a certificate should be granted, even though the applicant has satisfied the requirements. This is a difference from the Act of 1969, under Section 23 of which it was incumbent on the police to grant a certificate once the requirements had been satisfied.

  1670
  At present, firearm certificates for bullet-firing weapons are granted in two types of case only. The first is where the police consider that the person's life is in danger and that he needs a handgun for personal protection. The second is where a farmer shows that he cannot control vermin—[Interruption.]—such as crows and foxes by any means other than by the use of a ·22 rifle. It is not intended to place further controls on the grant of firearm certificates in respect of shotguns or air weapons, although of course, applicants wishing to acquire such weapons will have to satisfy the police that they have a good reason for acquiring them and can hold them without danger to the public.
  A firearm permit authorises the holder to have a firearm in his house, and only in his house. Formerly the applicant had to show only that he could hold the weapon without danger to the public.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) rose—
  Mr. Mills: The hon. Member will have plenty of time to make his own speech. I can then give it all of my attention.
  The order requires that the applicant for a permit must satisfy the same conditions as those prescribed for the grant of a certificate.
  Under the Act of 1969, the police had power to vary conditions already imposed on firearm certificates, but they did not have power to impose conditions where the certificate had been granted or renewed without conditions. Article 3(3) gives them this power. Article 3(4) gives the police additional powers to revoke certificates and permits.
  Under the Act of 1969, a certificate or permit could be revoked only if the holder was disqualified for a criminal offence or was in some way unfitted to hold a firearm. Certificates can now be revoked if the possession of a firearm by the holder is likely to endanger the public safety, or the peace, or if he no longer has good reason for holding a firearm. A certificate can also be revoked if he fails to produce his firearms for a test— I shall come back to the question of tests later—or if he fails to furnish a

  1671
  photograph for attachment to his certificate or permit, as required by regulations.
  It is not proposed that there shall be any general revocation of firearm certificates. However, should the police decide that a person cannot hold a weapon without danger to the public, for instance because there is a real danger that it may be stolen and used by terrorists, the certificate can now be revoked. The holder will, of course, have the same right of appeal as before.
  I now come to the paragraphs relating to firearms dealers. Article 3(5) introduces a new condition, requiring that the police must be satisfied that there is a need for a firearms dealer's business at the place where the applicant proposes to trade.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Under the 1920 Act, the Minister has no authority to take away a man's livelihood. Has he studied this matter to see whether the order is legal? In a High Court case which was fought right to the House of Lords, it was established that the Government had no right to take away any man's business under the 1920 Act.
  Mr. Mills: With respect to my hon. Friend, I am certain that it is legal, or I would not be pronouncing on it tonight. The dealers are very happy and satisfied with what is being done.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: Yes, but is it legal?
  Mr. Mills: Surely.
  I was saying that Article 3(5) introduces a new condition, requiring that the police must be satisfied that there is a need for a firearms dealer's business at the place where the applicant proposes to trade. Article 3(7) applies this condition to the registration of new premises in the name of an existing dealer. There is provision in Article 3(6) for additional controls over the number and types of firearms and quantities and types of ammunition which a dealer may keep on his premises, and the Minister is also empowered to give directions to the police as to what conditions should be
  1672
  imposed on dealers' certificates of registration.
  A direction has already been issued which prohibits the holding of bullet-firing weapons by dealers, and dealers have handed over their stocks of these weapons to the police. Arrangements are being made for the dealers to be paid for the weapons handed over. The dealers have co-operated in every way with the police and the Ministry of Home Affairs, and I want to emphasise that there is no suggestion that firearms dealers are not entirely trustworthy. The directive was issued because, about a month ago, for the first time, a dealer's premises were raided and there have been three further raids since then. In the interests of public safety, it was essential to prevent any further robberies. The purchaser of a bullet-firing weapon in future will make his selection from a catalogue and not from stock.
  Article 4 provides that ballistic or other tests may be carried out on certain firearms. In the first instance, all handguns will be tested. Hon. Members will be interested to learn that test firing has started and is under way at 15 test centres. The characteristics of the builets fired at these tests will be codified, and checks will be made against bullets found at the scenes of crimes. Every effort is being made to ensure that holders of handguns held—
  Miss Bemadette DevlinWhen ballistics tests are being made of handguns, will they include handguns held by the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment?
  Mr. Mills: No, I do not think they will. These tests will be confined to the certificates which are given to the general public.
  Every effort is being made to ensure that holders of handguns held for personal protection will not be without their weapons for longer than a day.
  Under the Act of 1969, the Minister has power to make regulations requiring applicants for a firearms certificate to furnish photographs. Article 5 of this order introduces a new provision regarding photographs—the Minister is given

  1673
  power to make regulations requiring existing holders of certificates to furnish photographs. It is proposed to make regulations shortly requiring applicants for certificates in respect of bullet-firing weapons, and the holders of certificates on which such firearms are held, to furnish photographs which will then be attached to their certificates. This will help the security forces and the police when checking legally held weapons.
  The additional powers provided in this order will ensure strict control over legally held guns, and I can therefore commend it to the House.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: The Opposition welcome the order as far as it goes. We are concerned, however, about the question of guns in Northern Ireland. The latest figures that we have of legally held weapons in Northern Ireland, on 3rd March 1973, show a total of 107,330 guns. That figure includes 73,000 shotguns, 11,000 air weapon, 13,000 ·22 rifles, 737 other rifles and 7,812 hand guns.
  We have a breakdown of weapons by area. A considerable number of guns are held in the Belfast area. We have been told that most of the guns are held in rural areas by farmers, and so on. If that is so, why are there so many legally held guns in Belfast? Does the Minister have any idea of the proportion of these guns which are shotguns?
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: It is 68 per cent.
  Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it is 68 per cent. Will the Minister confirm that? What shotguns are needed in the built-up area of Belfast?
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has raised this issue on a number of occasions. On 6th April 1971 he asked the Prime Minister to give urgent thought to
  "a ban on all privately held arms subject, as I suggested, to stringently licensed authority for people in remote rural areas; appropriate provision for farmers to possess appropriate weapons."
  My right hon. Friend also said,
  "Outside that, the Government should come to the conclusion that the possession of private arms should be forbidden.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April 1971; Vol. 815, c. 280.]

  1674
  The Minister is tightening up on this matter. Photographs of guns are to be taken and ballistic tests will be made. Nevertheless, there are far too many guns in Northern Ireland, licensed or otherwise.
  That point was re-emphasised and endorsed by the Labour Party conference. We have been told consistently that the murders and killings which have occurred in Northern Ireland have not been done by authorised gun holders. But I have here a letter which was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) by the Very Rev. P. Canon Murphy. He states in the letter,
  "The News Letter of Wednesday, February 14th clearly indicated that an unreasonable supply of arms was held by the accused on licence and that one of these was used in the murder of the policeman of which he has been found guilty. The second, the Belfast Telegraph, of Thursday 15th February, details the accused's own story of the events from which it emerges clearly that his superior officer of the U.D.A. of which he is a member arrived at his home and told him to report to a meeting point and to bring his gun. On proceeding to the meeting point he was given ammunition for the gun. The gun referred to was, as already stated, the one employed in the killing. It also emerges clearly from the statement of the accused under examination that under the aegis of the U.D.A. he had been given instructions in the use of arms.
  The points of concern to us all that emerge from the foregoing evidence are:

  1. That the Security Forces were aware from the 21st October 1972 that legally held guns had been employed in the killing of one of their members.

  2. That on the same occasion it came to the notice of the Security Forces that the U.D.A. were using guns and giving instruction in the use of arms."

  I have here photostat copies of the news letter and the Belfast Telegraph report detailing this point. The reason I raise it is that it gives explicit evidence as to the use of legally held weapons. While this order will tighten up the position, it is still not satisfactory. We believe that there are still too many licensed guns in Northern Ireland, and they can be used in circumstances which are not in the interests of the community as a whole. One notices that in communities such as those of the United States, where there is a large issue of arms, it is very easy to get guns and licences. The number increases and never decreases.
  The Government, particularly in the new legislation we are to have following adoption of the White Paper, should take

  1675
  steps to withdraw—not merely to review and examine—licences which may not be used for legitimate purposes in present circumstances.
  We will not divide the House against this order, which goes a few short steps in the direction we want to see taken, but it should go still further.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I shall not develop the point which has been made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I share his doubt about the legality of depriving the firearms dealer of his livelihood. I was not satisfied with the reply, given as it were off the cuff, by the Under-Secretary of State.
  Much emotion arises out of the licensing of guns. I believe that most people in Northern Ireland accept that the terror faced by the ordinary Ulster man and woman is that from those who possess unlicensed guns. It is easy for my hon. Friend to say, as I believe he said, that 333 unlicensed firearms have been recovered since 1st January. No doubt the statistics are admirable. Yesterday I heard the Prime Minister, when opening the debate, giving statistics about the number of IRA members who have been apprehended, but that is no comfort to the ordinary person, particularly old people huddled in fear at the prospect of death at the hands of other Republican terrorists.
  On the number of unlicensed guns in Northern Ireland, I do not differ much from the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). There are just over 7,000 revolvers and pistols. I did not take a note of the figure he mentioned, but I believe the total was 7,345 in February this year, the latest figure I have seen. That ought to be borne in mind when stating the sum total of all licensed firearms in Ulster. There are a great number of air rifles which have to be licensed in Northern Ireland whereas there is no legal requirement for them to be licensed in England. They number almost 12,000. It is easy to evoke emotion about the number of firearms, but common sense should require people to look at the totals.
  Mr. Frank McManus: I am sure that the hon. Mem-
  1676
  ber does not want to appear unreasonable and one-sided. He said that the Prime Minister gave figures about guns and ammunition held by Republican terrorists, as the hon. Member described them. Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister said that the greater proportion was found in Protestant areas?
  Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Member is making a fair point. He is right to have drawn it to my attention. I would not wish to, nor could I, mislead the House with the hon. Member here. It is true that some guns have been found but I do not recollect the figures. But we are dealing with unlicensed guns and I am all for the authorities searching out and capturing unlicensed guns because they are the ones which pose a threat to the people of Northern Ireland.
  May I add for the benefit of the hon. Member that the RUC and the Army walk around the Protestant areas of Belfast. They cannot engage in the same easy searches in Republican areas. The RUC cannot go into the Republican areas anyway unless the members of the force are well protected by the Army. If the Army and the police could walk around as freely in Republican areas as they do in Protestant areas they might find considerable caches of unlicensed arms.
  Mr. McNamara: In his willingness not to mislead the House, will the hon. Member recall that area in which the UDR lost its rifles on the eve of the border poll? Was it Berlin Street?
  Mr. Kilfedder: Once again a red herring is drawn in, because there is no evidence that the UDR was guilty of negligence in that instance and we do not know who was responsible for capturing those rifles. [Interruption.] I do not think—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will confine their remarks to the terms of the order.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. McNamara: Just to get the record straight, I did not say who took the rifles, I merely said that they had been taken at a certain place on the eve of the poll from the UDR without loss of life or even any sign of a struggle.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Of course those rifles are now illegally held arms. Anyone caught with them is liable to be prosecuted by the police and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. So the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) can rest content in his bed, worried only about his Icelandic problems. If he sends a gunboat to Iceland perhaps he might want some of those unlicensed arms for the seamen.
  I am, however, conscious of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I intend to abide faithfully by it. The hon. Member for Salford, West asked the Minister what was the breakdown of the shotgun figures for different areas in Northern Ireland. He cannot understand the large number of licensed shotguns in Northern Ireland. He wanted to know whether there were any shotguns in Belfast. I would not be a bit surprised if, when the Minister replies, he confirms that there are shotguns in Belfast. Northern Ireland is a very small community. The country is never far away for city dwellers. People go out to shoot vermin and to enjoy themselves. It is, I believe, a condition of holding a licence for a shotgun that the police must be satisfied in advance that a landowner has given permission for a potential licence-holder in Belfast, for example, to shoot on his land. Licences are not granted to people in Belfast who want to shoot rabbits in their back gardens.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Some people do not have gardens.
  Mr. Kilfedder: That is true.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West ought to remember that at weekends and on summer evenings many people go into the country and do a great service to farmers by keeping down vermin.
  Mr. McManus: You are talking about people using shotguns in the country. What sort of vermin are you talking about?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. MaUalieu): The hon. Member must not call upon me to do these things.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I heard the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), at some stage, say something about Catholics when the Under-Secretary was referring to
  1678
  vermin. I did not intend to take it up because I thought it was in the worst possible taste. The hon. Gentleman can laugh, but to my mind that is not a pleasant thing to state in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has his own armoury. He is a Roman Catholic and he has his guns. He should not talk about Protestants shooting Catholics. Let us be fair—[interruption.]—I never expect fairness from the hon. Gentleman. If he has the courage to do so, let him stand up and put his questions rather than grunt away like a pig in a parlour. [Interruption.]
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to continue to heckle another hon. Member without asking him to give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I raise that as a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The point of order has been made and met by the Chair.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I think it is worth remembering that these guns are vital for crop and animal protection. They are also used by farmers for their personal protection in rural and border areas. There are few instances of guns being used illegally.
  In view of the mutterings of the hon. Member for Belfast, West it is worth pointing out that the breakdown of the number of licences shows no religious bias. There is no reason to support that, pro rata, Protestants have more guns than Roman Catholics, but perhaps the Minister can give us the figures. The vast majority of guns are held by farmers and sportsmen, and I hope the House will accept that the availability of firearms, and in particular shotguns, to the Catholic community for lawful purposes is no less than to the Protestant community.
  Roman Catholic farmers in my constituency have shotguns. They have their farms to look after, and they use their guns to shoot vermin. What is said by some people about this issue is nothing but an attempt to draw a screen or cloud across the danger to Northern Ireland from sources other than licensed guns.

  1679
  I conclude by referring to pistols and revolvers, to which I referred earlier. In February of this year the total was 7,345. I remember that 7,345 was the figure stated fox February last. I may be wrong about that figure—
  Mr. Orme: It is 7,812.
  Mr. Kilfedder Mr. Kilfedder—but perhaps the hon. Gentleman who replies will give the correct figure.
  These licences are issued for guns for personal protection by members of the reserve security forces and for people in public life, including the hon. Member for Belfast, West. Perhaps he might like to tell the House of all the guns he possesses—licensed guns. Licences are issued for others in danger of personal attack. A considerable number of the total of pistols and revolvers are antique ones and it is worth bearing in mind that many of these have been made incapable or are incapable of being used.
  We should remember in this debate that three magistrates have been attacked in Northern Ireland and that one was fatally injured. He was Mr. William Staunton, a stipendiary magistrate in Belfast, shot in front of his daughter as he was taking her to school. These guns are necessary for persons in public life such as magistrates and they should not be denied that protection. I have still not recovered from the ferocity of the attack on the unfortunate magistrate, Mr. Staunton, who had merely been doing his duty for all citizens in the community, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. There are others. Perhaps we have forgotten Senator Barnhill who was murdered in his own home. This elderly man was murdered.
  There were attacks also on Mr. John Taylor, a junior Minister in the Stormont Government, and Senator Mrs. Taggart. An attack was made on the wife of the Lord Mayor of Belfast and on others, and they should not be denied protection. We should not forget the former Speaker, now retired, of Stormont, Major Ivan Neill, who was also attacked in his own home. The evidence shows that protection is needed.
  I wanted to ask my hon. Friend about one thing he said in opening. He said that there had been four raids on fire-
  1680
  arms dealers. One took place in my constituency at Newtonards. It is essential to prevent any further raids and to prevent guns falling into unlawful hands, whether Republican or any other. As a precaution against this the Minister said that bullet-firing weapons would in future be selected from catalogues and not held in stock.
  I have talked to firearms dealers about this problem, which I think is a grave one. I suggest—and I hope this is not too late, although we cannot amend the order, but perhaps the Minister will take it up—that a dealer might be able to keep on his premises one gun and one revolver of each type with the firing pin filed down so that it is useless to anyone. Potential purchasers would be able to test the weight of the gun and to examine it. If they decide to purchase a similar weapon they will go to the nearest police station or armoury to buy it, in the same way as they get the ammunition. I put that to the Minister for consideration. I agree that there is a need for ballistic tests—no one in my constituency would object to that. We know that they will prove our case that the licensed gun holders are not engaged in terrorism.
  Although I agree with the order, I share the grave doubt voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North and I think that the Minister should take legal advice before answering the debate.
  11.1 p.m.
  Miss Bernadette Devlin: Before coming to the three main points that I want to take up on the speech of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), I refer to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) which were prompted by a happening in my constituency involving the possession and discharge of a shotgun and the shooting of vermin.
  A gentleman was found at 1.30 in the morning firing a shotgun. He was subsequently acquitted on the technicality that he was firing not from a public footpath but from within half an inch of his own gate. By sheer chance, the direction of his aim was towards a Catholic housing estate on the other side of the road. The victims were a number of residents in that Catholic housing estate, who were

  1681
  not seriously injured because the weapon was a shotgun.
  The gentleman was brought to court and acquitted on a technicality, but the evidence brought in his defence and seriously accepted by the court was that he was in legal possession of a shotgun for the purpose of keeping down vermin. It was claimed, in all seriousness, that what he was doing by pointing his shotgun in the direction of the housing estate was keeping down vermin. That might be referred to in the broad sense of keeping down something—
  Mr. Kilfedder: We are both Irish. Perhaps I may draw an analogy with what happens in England during—what is the season?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is embarking on a lengthy intervention. I allowed the hon. Lady to go rather wide. Will she relate her speech to the order that is being discussed?
  Mr. Kilfedder: I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was going off the point, but my remarks are relevant to what the hon. Lady is saying.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may well be, but a good deal of what the hon. Lady was saying was wide of the order. I am trying to bring the House back to the order. It is late at night and it is better that we should get on with the contents of the order.
  Miss Devlin: To return to the three major points I mentioned, what may in all seriousness be a statement from the Front Bench that shotguns are required to put down vermin may be questioned in the parochial areas of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Peter Mills: Perhaps I can dear up this point at once. I am a farmer and I have had a lot of contact with farmers in Northern Ireland. They know what I mean. This is an extremely difficult pest to deal with, and one has to have a gun to deal with it. It is a problem common to all farmers in protecting their stock. It must be dealt with. Certainly I did not wish to give the impression, and I do not believe that I did, that I meant anything else. The farmers know what I mean.
  Miss Devlin: I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement.
  1682
  I return to the question of legality. I claim no particular expertise in this respect, but I join the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in saying that it is not good enough for the Under-Secretary of State to dismiss the matter simply by stating that it is legal. One casts one's mind back to the fact that the British Army was operating illegally between August 1971 and March 1972. A very embarrassed Government had to put a very hasty Bill through the House to rectify that situation. In all fairness, it would be better for the Government to look into this question now instead of glibly dismissing it, only perhaps to discover, after legislation has been passed, and there may well have been something in what the hon. Member for Antrim, North, said.
  The Under-Secretary of State said that ballistic tests would be made only of those weapons for which certificates have been issued to the civilian population. Here I do not particularly want to score political points against the British Army, I am not making a generalisation against it, and I do not want to go into matters already before the courts. I shall merely refer to certain cases.
  There is at the moment a case before the Northern Ireland courts concerning members of the British Army who used a firearm against members of the civilian population. As I say, I have no knowledge whether the arms in that case were legally held or illegally held.
  We have yet another case about which I do not wish to make further comment but merely refer to. It concerns another member of the British Army who recently, we were told—
  Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not like to interrupt the hon. Lady, but as a lawyer I must ask whether it is fair to defendants who are facing charges if these statements are made in the House, since in Northern Ireland the people to whom they refer can be easily identifiable. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to damage the chances of anyone.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is not getting out of order so far.
  Miss Devlin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no intention of saying anything that might prejudice the interests

  1683
  of defendants. I am merely referring to the fact that such cases exist and that such charges are being brought. These people are not readily identifiable, in any case; they are unknown British solders.
  There was the recent case of a soldier who, in civilian clothes and off duty, returning from a dance, passed through the Bogside area of Derry and there discharged a weapon. He was subsequently arrested by the British Army and the police and is facing charges. Again I am not saying, because I do not know, what weapon he discharged, from what kind of handgun he fired shots. I am making no claim that anyone was injured —no one was. This may have been an isolated case [Interruption.] I am sure that if I am out of order the Chair will draw my attention to it. I am not making judgments on these cases. I am merely referring to their existence. While these cases exist, there is doubt.
  I want to refer now to cases which are not yet before the courts and, therefore, are not sub judice. They are the death of Patrick McVeagh, killed on 15th April 1972, the death of Daniel Rooney and the shooting of the two Conway brothers in May 1972. Subsequent Army statements admitted to the involvement in some degree or other of British Army personnel, but to date no charges have been brought. I have asked Questions in the House—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) really must relate her remarks to the order and its contents.
  Miss Devlin: With respect, this refers to the order and to the fact that the order will not make provision for ballistic tests on handguns held by individuals who are members of the Armed Forces, despite the large body of evidence to show that to some extent there has been misuse of weapons in the possession of such individuals in Northern Ireland.
  If the civilan population who are legally holding and legally entitled to firearms are expected to co-operate with the forces of law and order to establish the extent to which legally held weapons might be misused or illegally used, it is not too
  1684
  much to expect those very forces of law and order to exact from their own ranks the same discipline as they impose upon the civilian population.
  I have asked Questions in the House about the case of Patrick McVeagh, the death of Daniel Rooney and the shooting of the two Conway brothers in Belfast, so they cannot be sub judice. The cases have not been put before the Director of Public Prosecutions and are still being investigated by the civilian authorities. But there remains sufficient doubt as to the possibility of weapons legally held being illegally used to make it necessary that they be subjected to the same tests as civilian-held weapons.
  My third point concerns persons needing firearms certificates for their own protection. Is the hon. Member for Down, North aware that I myself, the hon. Member for Antrim, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) are not, according to the Firearms Act, allowed to hold firearms, although it might be argued that all three of us could claim, like many other people in Northern Ireland, to require protection? We cannot hold firearms because we have criminal records. There are many people who, because of the situation there, have gone to prison to serve six-month sentences for crimes such as marching when they should not have done so. While this may be an offence for which a person can be sent to gaol in Northern Ireland, it cannot really be said to be the kind of offence which makes a person unsuitable to hold firearms. There are many people whose political involvement in a legal and respectable way has in the past resulted in their serving prison sentences of more than three months for criminal offences. As a result, they are not entitled to protect themselves by the possession of firearms.
  I ask the Minister to look at these points seriously, especially with regard to the necessity for the Army to submit its own handguns for ballistic test and for cases of people in my own position to be reconsidered.
  11.14 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Government's priorities are wrong. We are discussing an order which is applicable to legally held firearms, yet

  1685
  in Northern Ireland there is a campaign being carried out by the Irish Republican Army and many people are suffering not from legally held weapons but from illegally held weapons. Recently an atrocious murder was committed in which a machine gun was used. Three sergeants of the British Army were brutally murdered. Yet tonight, after a lengthy debate on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, we find that the Government determine their priorities by choosing to deal with licensed guns. I thought that the Government would be dealing with more important business than that.
  As this order is before the House it is only right that Northern Ireland representatives should express themselves upon it. I regret that the only thing the Minister can say is that he would not be here to present the order if it were not legal. That is no argument.
  I have a good relationship with all the Ministers for Northern Ireland. I have always found them courteous and helpful in all matters relating to my constituency. I have found the Under-Secretary of State particularly helpful when dealing with agricultural matters. I represent a large agricultural constituency. However, the Ministers for Northern Ireland are not properly briefed. The amazing statement has been made by my hon. Friend that there are Protestant schools in Northern Ireland. There are no such things. There are State schools and Roman Catholic schools, but there are not Protestant schools as such connected to a Protestant denomination.
  Mr. Peter Mills: May I put my hon. Friend's mind at rest. When, with permission, I come to reply I may have something helpful to say on that matter.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Good. I am glad that the usual channels between the Civil Service and Ministers for Northern Ireland are open and that the information is available. I have not seen the Attorney-General in the House since the main debate, but no doubt, like all members of the legal profession, his mind is active at 17 minutes past 11 o'clock and he is applying himself to the problem.
  It would be interesting to know whether the order was raised and discussed with
  1686
  the licensed gun dealers in Belfast. The Under-Secretary of State has said that they are all happy. If that is right, all the licensed gun dealers who made representations to me were not included. If my hon. Friend has been informed that all gun dealers are happy about this legislation, that is definitely not true. The dealers who have approached many hon. Members from Northern Ireland in this House are not happy that they cannot have at least one sample weapon to show would-be customers.
  I have had strong representation from many of the dealers in Belfast about this matter. Is it not a fact that the number of gun dealers in business has been reduced already because of the troubles? Many dealers have gone out of business during the course of the troubles and have closed the part of their business which is concerned with guns, or closed down their licensed gun businesses altogether. Perhaps my hon. Friend can give me the figures. How many licensed gun dealers were in business in 1967, for example, and how many are there now?
  The way that licences are revoked goes to the very hub of the order. The order provides that licences can be revoked if the chief superintendent is satisfied that the possession of a firearm by a holder is likely to endanger public safety or the peace. Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that that provision will not be used in a blanket manner and that each person who has a licensed firearm will be judged on his merits?
  Mr. Peter Mills Mr. Peter Mills indicated assent.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I would not like any chief superintendent of police, or any other officer, to be able to say that over a vast district every gun will be automatically called in. That would be totally unfair and would be investing far too much authority in that officer.
  I turn to ballistic testing. If a gun that has not been fired for two months is brought in for testing, can a ballistic test be carried out on it? How far back can a ballistic test go? What is the use of testing a gun if the test covers only the firing of the gun within a few weeks? If it was a realistic series of tests the guns would have to be brought in regularly, and I am sure this is not envisaged.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I think my hon. Friend is making a mistake. The gun is not tested to see whether it has been fired. It is tested so that the bullet fired from it can be indexed and used later, possibly for identifying another bullet which has been fired illegally.
  Rev. Ian Paisey: The gun is also tested to see when it was fired. My hon. Friend may not know this, but those who have taken their guns in have been asked to say when they were fired. Then tests have been carried out to see whether the gun was fired on that date. This is happening in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member may try to read me a lesson on this. I am aware of the point he makes. Why are the police so anxious to know when the gun was last fired? These are the questions being asked of those who bring in their weapons. I am trying to establish how far back the tests go. It is an important point, and the Minister must be briefed on it.
  Will the Minister state clearly, so that it may be put firmly on the record, how shotguns are issued in Northern Ireland? It seems that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is not aware of the strict regulations covering the issue of shotguns in Northern Ireland. If a person lives in Belfast and wants to take part in sporting activities or if he wants a gun to shoot over someone's land, the first thing that must happen is that he must have a certificate from the farmer. The land must be of a certain acreage. If he cannot get that certificate he cannot even apply for a shotgun.
  Mr. Orme: I believe that the hon. Member was a Member of Stormont in December, 1970. This question of shotguns was raised by Mr. John Hume. I have the quotations from the Stormont HANSARD. He raised the issue of the dispersal of the shotguns. We hear a lot of argument about where shotguns are, and it is said they are mainly in the country. The point that has been made is that there are unnecessary concentrations in the city areas.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sometimes I feel that people imagine that shotguns are handed out willy-nilly in districts of the city of Belfast. Many who take part in sporting
  1688
  activities have been refused a shotgun licence. One of the questions asked when a person applies for a licence is whether he is a member of a shooting confraternity. It is not right to say that shotguns are given out in Belfast without inquiry by the police.
  In some places in Northern Ireland the only security a person has is a shotgun. Some weeks ago I was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus). I did not seek the hon. Gentleman's permission. After all, he comes to the Glens in my constituency without asking my permission. I was in a home where a young man—a member of the UDR— was gunned down in his own home, at his doorway. The mother had gone to the doorway and had found that her son had been shot. The only protection that home has is a shotgun. That home is not very many yards from the border.
  The talk by those in the House who say that all shotguns and licensed arms should be called in gets under the skin of those in Northern Ireland whose only protection is a shotgun under licence. Those people have no intention of going out and shooting anyone. I utterly deplore and condemn anyone who takes out a shotgun and shoots at a Roman Catholic or a Protestant.
  Perhaps the Minister will confirm that it is illegal to discharge any firearm within a certain distance of a public road. Therefore, it would be an offence for anyone to discharge a shotgun, even on his own property, unless he were so many yards from the road. Contrary to what the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) said, it would not be possible for a person to get off on a technicality on that issue.
  Law-abiding citizens on both sides of the religious and political fences in Northern Ireland are very concerned about the question of licensed guns. Some sections of the community receive no protection from any of the forces of law and order. There are roads which have never seen an Army vehicle and which are no-go areas for the police, as came out clearly in the debate over the last two days. Therefore, the only protection these people have is a licensed gun. They have no objection to tests being made or to the guns being subjected to proper scrutiny. The fear is that this is the

  1689
  thin edge of the wedge and that they will be deprived of their only security.
  I should like the Minister to state that it is not the Government's intention to call in all licensed arms and leave these people without any protection. A statement to that effect from the Minister tonight will be helpful to the situation in Northern Ireland and will allay the fears of those who fear sincerely that this is the beginning of the end of their protection.
  11.27 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is not present, because I was not seeking to make any comments on the incident that we were discussing earlier. I wanted merely to point out that even in areas where, according to his statement, the police are able to go freely arms may still be stolen—stolen from people who should be well able to prevent their being stolen.
  I have listened to the debate with amazement and wonder. A tremendous defence has been put up for privately held arms to be kept for sporting purposes. I was at a meeting in Hampstead some time ago when somebody said to me "There are Protestant guns killing our people." I said "There are no Protestant guns killing our people, because there is no such thing as a Protestant gun or a Catholic gun unless the guns have been baptised in some queer way in blood." It is guns and bullets that kill people. It is shots that maim and blind people. That is why we should call in all the guns. That is why I can only partially welcome what the Government are doing. They are only partially doing what the Opposition have asked them to do.
  I concede that people living in remote areas and in difficult circumstances— —Republicans, Nationalists, Moderates, Protestants, Unionists, Loyalists, Catholics, Christian Scientists, Presbyterians— [Interruption.]—and Free Presbyterians need some sort of a weapon to protect themselves. I see no reason why the Government of a civilised State should not say to these people "We accept that because of the troubled nature of the State at the moment you need to be protected, and we will therefore give you a licence and issue you with a weapon.
  1690
  It will be a weapon which belongs to the State, and which the State controls." It will not be a case of saying "If you can afford a handsome little sidearm you can buy it, but if you are a poor 'Prod' or a poor 'Tague' living in fear of your life and you cannot afford it, you cannot buy one."
  I should be happy to see the Government, in certain specific situations, issue arms to people whom they felt needed them, but we seem to have had too many tears shed over the plight of the poor gun dealer and the poor sportsman. I admit that to take away a man's livelihood is a serious thing, but it is far more serious to take away a man's life or the use of one or more of his limbs.
  Given the numbers involved, it would seem easy for the Government to give more generous compensation than they have been giving to people who nave handed in their guns or feel that they will have to go out of business because of these regulations. If we give such persons sufficient financial aid, it might not compensate them for the enjoyment they have been getting out of their sporting activities, or for the love they have of their trade or profession or their great expertise, but in material terms there can be adequate compensation. It seems strange to cry so much about these people.
  I conclude by asking one rather serious question. Allegations have been made of guns being stolen. I wonder whether the Minister can say whether any situation has arisen in which legally held guns have been stolen; in what circumstances the facts have been able to be checked; in what circumstances the guns so stolen have been used; and, more important, whether the people from whom the weapons have been stolen have had further weapons issued to them—and, if so, what conditions have been applied to them.
  11.34 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: We have had an interesting debate on this subject, but the case put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and, in opening, by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) appeared completely to miss the point. The trouble in Northern Ireland which we have been experiencing for the past three years has been caused

  1691
  by arms such as light rifles, Russian rockets—and we were pleased to hear about the interception, off the coast of Eire, of a ship full of guns and arms— Thompson sub-machine guns and other such weapons, none of which are subject to firearms certificates.
  In Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the British Isles, many people—farmers, sportsmen and riflemen—use their guns to keep down vermin, for target practice, or for shooting clay pigeons. But there is no evidence that any of these arms are being used for illegal purposes. I welcome the fact that small arms are being called in and ballistically tested, so that those who have to keep them for personal defence cannot be accused of using them for some illegal purpose. But the bulk of the arms in Northern Ireland, the shotguns and 22 rifles, are not the weapons which are being used by the terrorists, whose actions have led to the heavy casualties to which reference has been made in the debates of the last two days.
  The casualty list is 760 people killed since October 1968. Of these, 202 were killed in explosions, which leaves 558 killed by firearms. This figure can be further broken down into 235 members of the security forces—soldiers, police and reserve police—some of whom have been assassinated, like the three soldiers on leave or when clearly undefended, or shot by high-powered rifles and submachine guns—weapons which are not the subject of firearms certificates.
  Every time a soldier is shot in Northern Ireland the Provisional IRA puts out a statement claiming responsibility—for 235 deaths in the past three years. Attacks have been made on the resident magistrate, Mr. Staunton, and on politicians like Senator Barnhill, Senator Mrs. Taggart, John Taylor, Ivan Neill, Senator McGladdary, Mrs. Christie, the wife of the Mayor of Belfast, William Craig and others. It is because of murderous attacks on people like these that ordinary civilians are obliged to get weapons for their own protection.
  I deplore the fact that people in public life feel that they should keep a firearm. After all, often when an assassination is made, the victim is not able to use the weapon. But in a few instances people
  1692
  have been attacked in cars and have not been killed with the first shot; they have been able to fire back and chase the terrorists off. So in some cases the firearm has had a good effect, and has prevented the person attacked from being killed.
  In my constituency some months ago, two police inspectors, Inspectors Moore and McMaster, a namesake of mine, were attacked on their way from their barracks. If another policeman had not been following and fired a couple of shots at the assassins, those two men, instead of being seriously wounded, would have been killed. It is because of incidents like this that there has been concern about the use of firearms in Northern Ireland. But this order adequately covers the use of licensed firearms, those held under a certificate or a permit.
  What we want to see is greater activity by the Army in searching out illegal arms, which are used day after day. Another soldier was shot dead today, I regret to inform the House. At the weekend, not only were the three soldiers shot dead and one seriously wounded, but a policeman was shot dead. In spite of the Government's effort's and the plebiscite, this terrible toll continues. We see reports in the papers every morning of such incidents in areas like the Falls and the Ardoyne. The Army should go on the offensive and search out the illegal arms which must be in those areas since they are continually used there.
  That is the action I call for from my hon. Friend and the Army; not the type of restrictions suggested by some hon. Members of the Opposition, restrictions on people who hold firearms for personal protection or on farmers and others who keep air rifles and the like.
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I shall try to reply to some of the points which have been raised. A whole mass of things have been asked of me. I shall have to rush through them. If I do not complete them, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.
  We have had an interesting debate. It has been a little heated at times. I welcome what was said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). Although he has reservations, he has welcomed the order. I was pleased to hear that.

  1693
  I take up the point raised particularly by the hon. Member for Salford, West and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that there are far too many guns in Northern Ireland and that the order does not go far enough. They said that there should be a widespread policy of calling in firearms certificates.
  I should like to make the following important points. Article 3(4) gives the police authority very extensive powers to revoke certificates and permits. There will be no general revocation but the certificates and permits of persons who do not satisfy the conditions of that article may be revoked.
  Concerning bullet-firing weapons— hand pistols and so on—it would be rather silly to call in these guns if the police had assessed that the holders needed them for self-protection—or for approved farming purposes. That is probably a better phrase than the one I used. This is an important point. It would be foolish to call in these guns when people's lives are in danger. Naturally we should like to have a position—we hope that it will soon come—when this will not be necessary. There is no evidence to justify the widespread calling in of shotguns and air weapons.
  Members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have been targets for murder. Thirty-five have been killed, of whom all except five were off duty. It would be wrong to deny members of the regiment the means of protecting themselves.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West was concerned specifically about the thorny question of shotguns in Belfast. I regret that I am unable to give him the breakdown of the figures. I hope, however, that it will please the House when I say that a new statistical unit is being set up and that within a short time it will be possible to supply that type of information quickly.
  I am a farmer. I have a shotgun. I enjoy shooting and so on. Many people enjoy it. We have no evidence that shotguns are the real problem. It is the other types of illegally held weapon which are the problem. Probably not all hon. Members will agree with me, but even in Belfast many people enjoy shooting on surrounding farms, wildfowling and clay pigeon shooting. Belfast is very near most of the countryside. That is one
  1694
  reason why there seems to be a fair number of shotguns in Belfast.
  I turn to the question of the offences that were committed with legally held weapons and the particular cases. I must be very careful about this matter, particularly those cases which are before the courts. Seven firearms certificates have been revoked in the last six months because the holders have committed an offence using a legal firearm. Some of the offences were so minor that the offenders were not prosecuted. Only in one case was the crime committed because of the present political unrest. I shall not go into that case because it is sub judice. Of the other cases, only one person has been sentenced to imprisonment. The man concerned used his shotgun to resist arrest when police went to his home with a warrant in connection with a small debt. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
  Therefore, one cannot say that the legally held weapons and the offences are very serious. There have been only seven offences, only one of which was serious.
  What we are doing about firearms dealers' businesses is quite legal. We are not taking away a man's livelihood; the dealer may still trade. The provision concerns only new licences and registrations. The number of raids on dealers' premises have been very few. I welcome what was said by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) about selling from a catalogue. I am not happy about the suggestion that dealers should be able to sell from stock. I will check up but I understand that they are reasonably happy about what we are doing. I do not think that in present circumstances it would be wise to leave even one gun in a shop.
  There were 77,000 licences on issue on 3rd March and 1,994 permits, a total of just over 79,000. These certificates were for 73,679 shotguns, 11,792 air weapons, 13,310 ·22 rifles, 737 other rifles and 7,812 handguns, a final total of 107,330.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), I have checked the legal position and I believe I am correct except for a slight mistake. I said that the guns of the Army would not be tested, but the reserve security forces will be tested and that means the UDC and the RUC.
  Miss Devlin: I am very glad to hear that. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Ulster Defence Regiment-again, I say this not out of any attempt to denigrate the regiment but merely because of the security position and the greater proportion of them have of necessity to carry a gun—will be included?
  Mr. Mills: I will check on this, but I think I made the position clear.
  The third point the hon. Lady made was whether we could consider those who had been in prison for three months. Section 19(5) of the 1969 Act gives the Minister power to remove the prohibition against holding arms from those who have been in prison.
  Mr. McManus: I understand that if a group of soldiers go out while off duty, at least one of them is entitled to carry a handgun. If a civilian has a licensed gun and takes it with him when he goes out for the night, why should the law differentiate between him and the armed soldier? The soldier is just as likely as the civilian to discharge his gun, and he is probably more expert in the use of firearms. Why should not the soldier's gun be subject to a ballistic test?
  Mr. Mills: I do not want to mislead the House. I shall check on this and write to the hon. Gentleman, but I am fairly sure that off-duty Army personnel wearing civilian clothes are not allowed to carry guns.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised the question of firearms dealers. There are 255 dealers. There used to be 500 in 1970. Of those 255, only 189 are authorised to deal in firearms. The others sell ammunition and so on. A person must be registered as a firearms dealer before he can trade in air weapon bullets or shotgun cartridges, and the police require a high standard of security at dealers' premises.
  My hon. Friend is right in what he said about shotguns. They are subject to stringent rules and regulations. The
  1696
  applicant will have to satisfy the police about the purpose for which a gun is intended and comply with security and other requirements.
  The testing period will remain three years, but guns may be retested before that period expires if circumstances warrant it.
  I have given the House the assurance that there will be no general revoking of licences. We shall look at the situation. The whole business of introducing photographs is an important step forward, because if we can save one life it is important to do so.
  I have probably not dealt adequately with all the issues that have been raised. I seem to have been asked a tremendous number of questions. I shall read HANSARD with care, and if I have failed to answer any questions I shall write to the hon. Members who asked them. What we are proposing will go a long way towards making certain that certificates are warranted and are right. I believe that the order is a step forward and I commend it to the House. Our aim is to save lives, and that is important.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.

  DOCKS AND HARBOURS (VALUATION)
  Resolved,
  That the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) (Amendment) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Suspects and Accused Persons (Statements)
  Suspects and Accused Persons (Statements)
  Police (Foot Patrol)
  Police (Foot Patrol)
  Firearms (Sale)
  Firearms (Sale)
  Toilet Preparations (Hazardous Substances)
  Toilet Preparations (Hazardous Substances)
  Plastic Foam (Safety Risk)
  Plastic Foam (Safety Risk)
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Jury Service
  Jury Service
  Municipal Elections (Northamptonshire)
  Municipal Elections (Northamptonshire)
  Visitors from Ireland (Entry Security)
  Visitors from Ireland (Entry Security)
  Probation Service (Pay)
  Probation Service (Pay)
  Kenyan Asians
  Kenyan Asians
  Street Offences Act
  Street Offences Act
  Robbery and Assault (Young Persons)
  Robbery and Assault (Young Persons)
  Prisoners (Drug Tests)
  Prisoners (Drug Tests)
  Immigrants (Detention)
  Immigrants (Detention)
  Immigrants (Deportation)
  Immigrants (Deportation)
  Fire Precautions
  Fire Precautions
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Owner-Occupiers (Assistance)
  Owner-Occupiers (Assistance)
  Border Poll
  Border Poll
  Capital Allowances (Corresponding Northern Ireland Grants) Order
  Capital Allowances (Corresponding Northern Ireland Grants) Order
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Economic Situation
  Economic Situation
  Employment and Prices
  Employment and Prices
  Private Wealth
  Private Wealth
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Tax Threshold
  Tax Threshold
  Gifts Tax
  Gifts Tax
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Taxation (Marginal Rates)
  Taxation (Marginal Rates)
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Personal Disposable Income
  Personal Disposable Income
  Tax Reductions
  Tax Reductions
  Company Profits
  Company Profits
  Valuation Staff, Manchester
  Valuation Staff, Manchester
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Remand Facilities (Young Persons)
  Remand Facilities (Young Persons)
  Parents' War Pension
  Parents' War Pension
  Family Allowance
  Family Allowance
  Respiratory Diseases
  Respiratory Diseases
  Pension Increases
  Pension Increases
  Industrial Disputes (Benefit)
  Industrial Disputes (Benefit)
  Motor Cyclists (Accidents)
  Motor Cyclists (Accidents)
  Psychiatric In-Patients (Resources)
  Psychiatric In-Patients (Resources)
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
EMPLOYMENT
  Wages and Profits
  Wages and Profits
  Apprenticeships (Hamilton)
  Apprenticeships (Hamilton)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Schools (Goole)
  Schools (Goole)
  Nursery Education (Northumberland)
  Nursery Education (Northumberland)
  CHESTERFIELD
  CHESTERFIELD
  CHILE
  CHILE
  SECURITY
  SECURITY
  PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA
  PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA
  LONDON BOROUGHS
  LONDON BOROUGHS
  KENYAN MINISTERS (MEETING)
  KENYAN MINISTERS (MEETING)
  ECONOMIC POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC POLICY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  REGIONAL POLICY
  REGIONAL POLICY
  SOUTH AFRICA
  SOUTH AFRICA
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HEALTH SERVICE
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HEALTH SERVICE
  NEW ZEALAND PRIME MINISTER
  NEW ZEALAND PRIME MINISTER
  ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  EDUCATION STATISTICS
  EDUCATION STATISTICS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Butter
  Butter
  Pigs
  Pigs
CIVIL SERVICE
  Economic Advisers
  Economic Advisers
DEFENCE
  Royal Air Force (Training Aircraft Accident)
  Royal Air Force (Training Aircraft Accident)
  Shoeburyness Gunnery Range
  Shoeburyness Gunnery Range
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authorities (Government Grants)
  Local Authorities (Government Grants)
  Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order
  Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order
  Statutory Water Undertakings (Staff)
  Statutory Water Undertakings (Staff)
  Planning Appeal (Mr. J. F. Jones)
  Planning Appeal (Mr. J. F. Jones)
  Special Environmental Assistance Scheme
  Special Environmental Assistance Scheme
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Sewerage Schemes (Bristol)
  Sewerage Schemes (Bristol)
  Rating (McNairn Report)
  Rating (McNairn Report)
  Roads (Faringdon and Didcot)
  Roads (Faringdon and Didcot)
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Bypass (Louth)
  Bypass (Louth)
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Council Rents
  Council Rents
  Maplin
  Maplin
  Roads (Goole)
  Roads (Goole)
  Homeless People
  Homeless People
SCOTLAND
  Medical Social Workers
  Medical Social Workers
  Police
  Police
  Power Station (Peterfaead)
  Power Station (Peterfaead)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Industrial Development Certificates (Wales)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Wales)
  Copper Price
  Copper Price
  Steel Plate and Sections
  Steel Plate and Sections
  Steel Scrap
  Steel Scrap
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Pyramid Selling
  Pyramid Selling
  Manufacturing Industry (Wales)
  Manufacturing Industry (Wales)
  Livestock Exports
  Livestock Exports

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act.

Fire Precautions (Loans) Act.

HOSPITAL STAFFS: INJURY COMPENSATION
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will provide generous compensation to doctors and nurses for injury to health on duty in the N.H.S. or in independent hospitals under contract to the N.H.S.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is expecting to receive shortly a report by the joint Superannuation Consultative Committee making recommendations for a new and improved injury benefits scheme covering all National Health Service staff who are permanently incapacitated by injury sustained or disease contracted in the course of duty. Additionally and separately he is considering a claim for improvements in the benefits payable to junior hospital doctors. Arrangements for compensation for staff of independent hospitals are for their employers to determine.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his Answer may I ask whether he does not think that there should be special coverage for, in particular, junior staff (doctors and nurses) going out on to the motorways? I am referring to the flying squads who go out on to the motorways to attend accidents, and at the moment if negligence cannot be proved they do not receive any insurance benefit. Also, can the Minister tell me whether those who work in renal dialysis units and who die as a result of their work are fully covered, and whether their dependants get full insurance benefit?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, on the first supplementary question put to me by the noble Baroness, we are now considering the special claim for improvements in benefits payable to junior hospital doctors for the specific reason that, as the noble Baroness appreciates, their earnings are relatively low early in their lives and they can expect considerably better remuneration later. This is a special case and we are looking into it. With regard to serum hepatitis, they would be covered in the normal way under the superannuation scheme, and they will also be covered by the next Question.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that this really is a very urgent matter and that the junior doctors have been waiting for about three years for an answer? Can he say when this answer will come?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I appreciate the urgency of this matter. It is unfortunately a very difficult question because it involves all sorts of other categories of staff.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask whether staff working in mental hospitals, particularly those who are liable to be in contact with patients who might be violent, are entitled to generous Government compensation in the event of their suffering injury?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords; if they suffered injury while at work they would be covered.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's

1187
statement, but can he tell us when we may expect a report on the first part of his Answer, which is very important?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it has been agreed in principle by the Joint Superannuation Consultative Committee and it has also been agreed that the new arrangements will be applied retrospectively to May 25 of last year.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, whatever the outcome of this Question and the next Question may be, whether he will at least ensure that the traditional historic ex-Serviceman's preference will not be entirely whittled away.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think this is a very different question, but I can give the assurance that the ex-Serviceman's preference in the scheme as a whole will certainly not be whittled away.

SERUM HEPATITIS B AND INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT
3.11 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will extend the Industrial Injuries Insurance Acts to apply to serum hepatitis B.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, appropriate cover is already provided by the Industrial Injuries Act, which has enabled successful claims for benefit to be made.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, does the Minister know that there is considerable worry over this matter because last year two doctors, one nurse and one technician died in Edinburgh and the dependants of those people were not fully covered? Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety over this matter?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I was aware of an unfortunate outbreak in Edinburgh, but I can also assure the noble Baroness that a person working in
1188
a renal dialysis unit who contracts serum hepatitis as a result of that work is compensated under the Industrial Injuries Act.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government if they will consider immediately making this type of hepatitis a prescribed disease? Further, am I right in thinking that at present it is not a prescribed disease and therefore a person can only claim industrial benefit if he can, so to speak, prove an accident or an injury in the sense that on a certain day lie was in contact with a certain case which is now known to have been the source of his disease?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is quite right. Under the Industrial Injuries Act the term "accident" covers almost any untoward event or series of events at work which cause personal injury. Accidental infection by serum hepatitis falls within this category and claims for benefit have been allowed in persons developing the disease as a result of insurable employment. There is no need to list it because it is already covered as an accident.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, are the Government aware that far too little in the way of funds and facilities is allocated for research into the causation and treatment of this condition and that there is hope of a real breakthrough if only more generous assistance was available in this direction?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I shall certainly have a look at what the noble Lord has said. He will be aware, of course, of the Advisory Group on Hepatitis and the Treatment of Chronic Renal Failure which met under the chairmanship of the late Lord Rosenheim, which has made certain recommendations and we hope very shortly to commend the Report.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he thinks that unless the staff working in these renal dialysis units feel that they are particularly well covered recruitment may suffer?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I take the point that the noble Baroness has made. I think that she will agree that the staff are covered, and I hope they will

1189
know that they are covered because we have made it plain through Regional Hospital Boards and Boards of Governors. Anything that we can do further to help with the improved conditions in the superannuation field, or anything that we can do to help junior hospital doctors will no doubt go some way towards meeting her point.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, does not the present superannuation claim benefit senior staff, and are not the junior staff at a very great disadvantage?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, the scheme goes according to the salary that the person is paid.

LUNCHEON VOUCHERS
3.14 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: 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 is the present-day value in real terms of the three shilling luncheon voucher issued to lower paid workers in industry, when canteen facilities are not available.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, since the present concession was announced in January, 1959, the real value of a three shilling (15p) voucher has fallen to approximately 8½p.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that, if it was thought necessary fourteen years ago to have these luncheon vouchers available for lower paid staff, it is more than necessary to-day—as this Government has taken care of the lower paid workers—to be consistent, to upgrade the tax allowance against the needs of an increased value luncheon voucher?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, of course I take my noble friend's point, but we must be careful that unfairness does not arise. Many employees do not receive luncheon vouchers and would resent any increase in the tax advantage which employees who are given vouchers enjoy over those who pay for their meal
1190
in full. I would remind the noble Lord that a daily luncheon voucher of 15p is equivalent to a tax-free payment of about £35 a year.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he has missed the point? When the voucher was first issued it was a supplement and any junior typist commuting into London could buy almost a lunch for that amount. To-day it will hardly buy a sandwich and a cup of coffee. Will my noble friend look at this matter again, because his answer is most unsatisfactory?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am sorry to have given my noble friend an unsatisfactory answer, but I must stick to the point that the original luncheon voucher scheme was a tax concession.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some of these lower paid workers, particularly young women, rely upon this lunch to keep them going throughout the day? Could the noble Earl say how much of this three shilling luncheon voucher is related to the protein value of the lunch? That is a most expensive part of the lunch and the part which I presume the Government intend this luncheon voucher to cover. Could the noble Earl tell me how much protein is contained in this particular lunch at three shillings?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am very conscious of the pertinence of the noble Baroness's question because in trying to master this subject I myself went without lunch to-day, in my anxiety. What I must explain to her is that this is not a meal subsidy; this is a form of tax concession. It was designed originally to be the equivalent of an employer subsidy on a canteen meal and as such it is still a reasonable figure.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, can the noble Earl say what is the value of this three shilling voucher as compared with the point at which the freeze on prices was imposed?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I should have to have notice of that question.
LORD DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, can the noble Earl sustain his tax concession argument in the light

1191
of the tax concessions made to people with very high salaries, and who get a free meal, anyway?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I think that that question is missing the point, which is that luncheon vouchers are a form of remuneration and, as such, when above the limit originally announced as a concession by my noble friend Lord Amory in 1959, they are subject to tax.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, are the Government aware that among the lowest paid workers in industry are some of the Members of your Lordships' House, and would they give consideration to the issue of luncheon vouchers a little nearer home?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I could not be more delighted than to give consideration to that subject.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, do I correctly understand from the original reply of the noble Earl opposite that the attitude of the Government towards extending this tax concession was occasioned by what they believe to be resentment on the part of those who do not receive luncheon vouchers? Am I correctly interpreting what the noble Earl said?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the original reply answered the original Question. That was one part of the reply but was not the full reply.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, what significance does the noble Earl attach to that part of the reply?
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, I shall endeavour to raise this matter again on a further ocasion.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that. If I may come back to the noble Lord opposite, I am afraid that in spite of the feeling of the House I must stand on this reply. I shall expand it in writing to him if he so wishes.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, when the noble Earl does that, will he give some evidence of what resentment has been expressed?—because
1192
I have never heard of this in all my experience in the trade union movement
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Yes, my Lords, I will.

"FINABL": BRITISH REPRESENTATION
3.19 p.m.
LORD WIGG: 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 the reason for the attendance of the Chief of the General Staff at a meeting to be held at Bonn on March 29 of FINABL, composed of representatives of the Army Chiefs of Staff of France, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg; and whether this is the first occasion at which the United Kingdom has been represented at FINABL and whether such representation has now become permanent.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, as my right honourable and noble friend stated in Chapter 1 of the 1973 Statement on the Defence Estimates, FINABL is a multilateral organisation in which Army Chiefs of Staff of the countries mentioned by the noble Lord and the United Kingdom meet, to discuss possibilities for harmonising tactics, logistics and training. They also discuss equipment requirements. The Chief of the General Staff is attending the meeting to-day as a permanent member for the first time.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be kind enough to answer my Question? I asked her whether this is the first occasion on which the Chief of Staff has attended and whether that representation has now become permanent? In the light of her reply may I ask one further question? Is it not a fact that this organisation, FINABL, was established in 1953 as a Common Market committee dealing with defence—and how comes it that the Chief of the General Staff attends a meeting of this kind without any announcement of any kind?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thought I had read the first reply fairly clearly, but

1193
I will repeat it, as the noble Lord has asked me. I did say that the Chief of the General Staff is attending the meeting to-day as a permanent member for the first time. On the other question, it is not a Common Market organisation; this FINABL organisation was in being before the Common Market, and we have always been eligible to join it. We have had links with it for a very long time—since 1956.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, will the noble Baroness inform your Lordships' House what is the precise relationship between this organisation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and what is the special significance of France's belonging to this organisation, which presumably is of a defensive and military character and yet does not belong to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, FINABL is an organisation entirely concerned with Army matters. The NATO organisation, which I know the noble Lord knows well, is a much larger organisation covering all Service matters. France is a member of FINABL, but not an active member of NATO.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the General was attending this meeting for the first time to-day as a permanent representative. Has he attended it as a non-permanent representative before to-day?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, this is a new acronym that we have to learn. Can the noble Baroness say whether reports will be available to this House of the visits of Chiefs of Staff and others to FINABL?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that the Chiefs of Staff will attend once a year, and that, as this is an advisory organisation, the results of any advice given will, of course, go to NATO.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Baroness give an assurance that at this organisation's meetings no discussion of nuclear matters will arise?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is possible that they might be discussed in a broad sense, but not in a particular sense.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as FINABL is now permanent, will the United Kingdom be included in the initials, and if so, where?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that this is a question of intense discussion, and of course any contributions will be gratefully received.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be good enough to tell the House when we made application to join FINABL?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we made application in January of last year, and we joined in March of last year.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain to Members of your Lordships' House what is the military character and quality of this organisation, about which we have heard very little, and what is the contribution that Luxembourg is going to provide in order to make this a worthwhile military organisation?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure that Luxembourg will make a great contribution in wisdom and experience and advice. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asks me what FINABL does. It provides a forum for consultation and cooperation on army equipment, it helps standardisation, and provides for regular interchange of information on tactics, logistics and training.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that all the atomic tactical weapons in Europe are provided by the United States? If now this Committee is to discuss atomic matters, what is the purpose of having a meeting in which the United States is not represented?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said, this matter has been discussed between ourselves and the

1195
French, and both have announced publicly on several occasions that the problem of Anglo-French nuclear collaboration is one for the future.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the French atomic tactical weapon is the M.2, 16 of which are situated on the Central Massif in France, and that the only major target they can reach is London?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I was not aware of that, but I am interested to hear it.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what is the cost of this organisation and what is our contribution to it?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we contribute £1,000 a year.

METALS SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
UPPER MERSEY NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR EXPANSION
3.27 p.m.
TEE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD)TEE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD) rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion" (Cmnd. 5174). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this House takes note of the White Paper Education: A Framework for Expansion. Anyone who happens to know East Anglia at all well will be familiar with the abbreviated solution to almost any hypothetical situation which is usually contained in the brusque use of the one word, "Do". "Do that rain I'll go and hoe the turnips, do that don't rain I'll go and mow the hay" is an admir-
1196
able solution to the vagaries of the weather in East Anglia, and to the politician eternally wrestling with objectives and priorities this example of such obvious decisiveness is an attitude of mind which is also decidedly attractive. And it is attractive not least to those who are involved in education, the service which claims over 55 per cent. of local authority spending and which presents such a formidable annual bill to the British taxpayer. But there the attraction of instant decisions on educational priorities has to cease, because education is a continuous process and should be available to young and old alike, and inescapably every Secretary of State becomes aware that to parents the important stage of education is the one which their sons and daughters happen to have reached at any particular moment.
So the Government's aims are of necessity broad. In number they are three, and to them all the detailed proposals in this White Paper are related. Our first broad aim is to try to extend the whole process of education over a wider span of years. The second is to secure an improvement in the quality of the service. As well as more, we want better education. Thirdly, we wish, wherever we can, by a greater diversity of provision, to try to enlarge personal choices and to make them, if possible, less irrevocable. But on these three broad fronts decisions have still got to be reached according to where the need is greatest. Here I think the White Paper has established a new perspective in forward thinking in education by planning over a ten-year period. By this my right honourable friend has constructed in this White Paper a framework within which choices can be made in a sensible relationship to each other and to the resources available.
The White Paper deals with five vital sectors of education which should push us forward on our three broad fronts. Those sectors are nursery education, school buildings, staffing standards in the schools, teacher training, and higher education. Nursery schools
"are not only social centres of training and up-bringing for the children, but have a real educational value and are often centres of adult education for the parents themselves. Therefore I hope we shall see a healthy development of nursery schools or classes where they are more expedient, and that we shall find that

1197
they buttress and support home life and make no attempt at supplanting it."
With those words, during the Second Reading of his Education Bill, my noble friend Lord Butler described the scope of what was to become Section 8(2)(b) of the Education Act 1944. Twenty-nine years later, I do not believe that anybody would want to change one of those sentiments. The educational and social benefits of an early start are now widely recognised: increasingly it is accepted that the involvement of parents, particularly mothers, can indeed be what the noble Lord so strikingly called, "adult education". The trouble is that, over a quarter of a century after the 1944 Act was passed, we have moved so painfully slowly along the way which the noble Lord directed.
Six years ago, Lady Plowden's Committee reviewed the case for children under five and concluded that parents of 90 per cent. of four-year olds, and 50 per cent. of three-year olds, would probably choose nursery education for their children if it were provided on a part-time basis, but with full-time provision needed for 15 per cent. of both age groups. My right honourable friend now undertakes to fulfil the Plowden targets. The White Paper has estimated that, after allowing for the adaptation of some primary places as primary numbers begin to fall, about 250,000 new places will need to be provided. At current costs, that is about £90 million worth of building starts, and a further £15 million will be needed for adaptation. Local education authorities have been asked to say by May 18 how much work they feel they can undertake in 1974 to 1976, when £30 million—that is some 75,000 new places—will be made available. Before the end of the summer, we shall be able to start making allocations and just exactly a year from now the work can begin.
May I quickly refer to two particular groups of children who will be affected by this programme? In a debate before Christmas initiated by my noble friend Lady Brooke, many of your Lordships expressed considerable interest in the needs of the very young handicapped children—and, indeed, of their parents. In a recent circular on nursery education, we said that the less severely handicapped can be educated along with others, if conditions and staffing are right. How-
1198
ever, on Monday we wrote to chief education officers asking local education authorities to identify any special units for the severely handicapped under five which they propose to provide in the first two years of the programme, and we shall reserve a small part of the £30 million specifically for this purpose.
In addition, the White Paper has promised that a measure of priority should be given to deprived areas—rural as well as urban. I think it was Winston Churchill who, on first going to Manchester to fight the General Election of 1906, is supposed to have said:
"Fancy living in one of these streets, never seeing anything beautiful, never eating anything savoury, never saying anything clever."
I do not know whether those words would have been spoken if he had known Manchester better, and they are not words which we would use to-day. But although the causes and the symptoms of cultural deprivation may change, their effects can remain as uncompromising as ever. In areas where the need is greatest there will, as the Plowden Committee recognised, be a heavier claim for full-time provision, and with this in mind we shall see that a substantial part of the £30 million available for the first two years is allocated not only by reference to the shortage of existing provision, but also by reference to other indices, such as income and housing.
To some extent this is uncharted territory but we shall, as we have promised in the White Paper, undertake a programme of research and much of it will be mounted after consultation with the Department of Health and Social Security, who are responsible for day-care facilities and with whom we share an interest in play groups, which are specifically mentioned in the White Paper and for which we envisage a continuing need. Finally, may I say that precise allocations will take account of the size of bids put in by L.E.A.s because my right honourable friend has said that she hopes that every authority will make a start in the next two years to provide a basis for future expansion.
The subject of school building, which is the second sector of the White Paper, is one which I suppose has long been controversial, but may I submit that the simple facts are these. Despite all the resources committed by all Governments

1199
since the war, a large part of the building programme has been taken up with providing "roofs over heads". The margin left for improvement has been pretty narrow, but, none the less, I do not think we need be too apologetic After all, it was the Labour Government in 1947 which remained true to the intentions of the 1944 Act, by raising the school leaving age to 15 at a time of unprecedented shortages. My noble friend Lord Eccles, as Minister from 1954, launched a systematic drive for the reorganisation of all-age schools by building secondary schools, first in the countryside and then in the towns. This work was supplemented afterwards by a special drive for better science facilities and by a special £300 million programme for the early 1960s and then, in 1964, my noble friend Lord Boyle announced more substantial sums for further secondary improvements, to be followed by a special programme which was planned for 1968–71 for the raising of the school leaving age to 16.
From this catalogue, the House will see that almost all the money for improvements since the war has been directed to secondary schools, and it is a fact that in the last two years we have discovered that one pupil in every five in a primary school—that is over 1 million pupils—is in a building dating from before 1903, which needs either completely replacing or very large scale improvements. So it was that, within four months of taking office, my right honourable friend announced a record programme of nearly £50 million for the financial year which we are just finishing, for the replacement of old primary schools. This is a programme which we shall continue and we have already approved the replacement of about 2,000 old primary schools. This gives us the opportunity now to announce a resumption of the secondary improvement programme. We are seeking to carry forward the work which has gone before, by launching a £10 million programme in England and Wales for 1975, and again for 1976—a programme which is planned to have a rising curve thereafter.
On Monday, the details of the projects on which work will start were released affecting 54 secondary schools, two-thirds of them in Greater London, the Midlands
1200
and the North, but not neglecting such rural areas as Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Herefordshire—and including projects as far apart as Cornwall and Southend. All this comes on top of the continuing programme to provide extra secondary places where numbers are rising, to the tune of well over £200 million in the next three years immediately following the special programme for the raising of the school leaving age, which alone has cost £150 million. May I add that my right honourable friend very strongly takes the view that the improvement of buildings must include more and better provision for children who are in special education. It is for this reason that, if your Lordships will glance at page 12 of the White Paper, you will see that it includes a little table showing the rapid acceleration in the special school building programme from £11 million this year to £19 million in five years' time. This will enable new places to be provided amounting to over 30 per cent. more per annum on average over this and the next four years, compared to the average provision of the three years which have gone before.
In this programme we intend to start about 5,000 more new school places for the severely E.S.N.—those who came within the education system in April, 1971—and in addition to new places we shall be able to double the resources for replacing old and inadequate special school buildings. In these ways, more scope will be given for a variety of things, not least the improved and more flexible staffing standards which have been recommended in Circular 4/73 which was sent out only a fortnight ago. Staffing standards and the training of teachers—the third and fourth sectors of the White Paper—stand together, in a sense, because it is the improvement in teacher supply which gave my right honourable friend the opportunity to invite the noble Lord, Lord James, to report on teacher training. It is from the work of his committee that the recommendations in the White Paper on training are mainly derived. Many of these proposals are, I think, of the greatest significance for instance, the huge expansion of training for the newly-qualified and for serving teachers, which is going to cost about £50 million a year more when it comes fully into operation. These were two matters particularly which were, I think, very notable in the Report, and I regret the absence owing

1201
to illness of the noble Lord from our debate this afternoon, which he had intended to attend.
As one who, on first ever passing an exam, received the rather dry comment from his headmaster that it was "triumph for teachers and taught alike", I believe very strongly that the quality of education depends on an adequate supply of teachers and on the quality of their training and retraining. We intend to work towards the achievement of a graduate teaching profession, and to this end we have proposed the introduction of three-year courses incorporating educational studies which will lead both to the award of a bachelor of education degree and qualified teacher status. But there are many young people who on leaving school do not wish to commit themselves to a particular career, although later they may wish to teach; and we agree with the noble Lord's Committee that they should have the option of entering the teaching profession without being virtually obliged to commit themselves at the very outset of their training. After all, many graduates go into teaching in this rather more circuitous manner, and the new diploma of higher education will introduce an additional element of flexibility in this respect.
For those who complete courses leading to qualified teacher status it is important that they should embark on their first job—what the noble Lord, Lord James, called "induction"—with more care and consideration than has often been the case in the past. We want them to receive proper support and some immediate in-service training during their probationary year, and to facilitate this we accept that they should normally be asked to undertake no more than three-quarters of a full teaching load. This is not all, for we also accept the widely welcomed recommendation of the noble Lord's Report that all teachers, as of right, should have access to continued education and training during their careers. Our target is taken from the Report: 3 per cent. of the total teacher force on in-service training in any one year, roughly a quadrupling of the existing secondment. Our method will be to begin an expansion of in-service training next year, working through to our target of 3 per cent. release by 1981. One consequence of the plans flowing from Lord
1202
James's Report is that another 20,000 teachers are going to be needed to avoid a drop in staffing standards within the schools. But we must not stop there. By 1981 we aim to secure a teaching force 10 per cent. higher than the numbers needed to maintain the staffing standards in the schools reached in 1971. To achieve this for the bigger 1981 pupil numbers, another 110.000 teachers are needed: and an extra 15,000 are also needed for the under-fives. So altogether we see a broad requirement of some 510,000 teachers in 1981, and your Lordships may be interested to hear that this compares with the 1971 figure of 364,000 and the 1961 figure of 276.000.
For the remarkable increase in numbers hitherto we have to thank all those who have been involved over the years in teacher training. For the basis of the majority of our training proposals in the White Paper we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord James. Paragraph 57 of the White Paper describes what is our goal:
"It is no less than building a body of teachers well prepared, academically and professionally, to sustain confidently the formidable task to which they are called: to guide each generation of children into a full appreciation of our culture, to quicken their social and moral awareness, to enhance their intellectual abilities to the highest standard of which each is capable, and to develop their practical and human skills so that each may be enabled to make his or her contribution to the health, wealth and harmony of a democratic society".
If, through our proposals, that goal is brought closer, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord James, will consider, as indeed we consider, that the work of his Committee was very well worth while.
My Lords, I have seen it said that this White Paper
"concerns itself exclusively with the fortunate minority who proceed to post 'A' level education".
But better teaching in better buildings, an earlier start and a full five-year secondary course are matters which I think it is fair for me to claim that my right honourable friend has proved she cares very deeply about; and the Government are not neglecting those who, after school, do not happen to enter higher education. Two large F.E. building programmes are being planned for the next two years. Moreover, the implementation of the Haslegrave Report, covering as it did the whole band of technician education

1203
has been carried a stage further by the recent setting up of the Technician Education Council. It is true that the White Paper had little to say about adult education, because the Report of the Russell Committee had not then been published. It was published two days ago, and it is, I am sure, now being studied with considerable interest by all concerned with the future development of adult education. The Committee were faced with a formidable task, and I should like to pay tribute to Sir Lionel Russell and his Committee for the remarkable Report which they have produced. It is, in a sense, a landmark: the first major Report on adult education for many years. It needs, and certainly deserves, careful study by the Government and other interests concerned.
My Lords, in laying our plans and setting out our targets for higher education—the final sector of the White Paper—we have kept the principle which was laid down by Lord Robbins very much in mind, and it is our intention to continue to make higher education available to all who are qualified for it and who wish for it. It is particularly difficult to forecast trends in these respects, but we judge that a total of about 750,000 full-time and sandwich course places by 1981—and this is a figure for Great Britain as a whole, including Scotland—will take account of the prospective increase in numbers of qualified leavers and will meet the likely demand for higher education from qualified applicants. I would emphasise that we are thus planning for a further significant extension of opportunity. Whereas in 1961 about 7 per cent. of l8-year-olds found places in an institution of higher education, in 1971 the proportion had risen to 15 per cent., and in 1981, if our plans go ahead, it will be 22 per cent. Of the prospective 750,000 places, we should intend that about half would be in universities and the other half in polytechnics and in colleges and institutions outside the university sector.
May I just add this about the settlement for the universities' 1972–77 quinquennium, which was announced in the White Paper? We plan that the number of full-time students should grow from 236,000 last year to 306,000 in the final year of the quinquennium—an increase of
1204
70,000, or nearly 30 per cent. This compares with a considerably smaller increase in the previous quinquennium of 51.000 students, or 27·5 per cent. However, during that quinquennium the number of post-graduates went up more than one-a-half times as fast as the number of undergraduates. We have decided to restore the balance by slowing down the growth of post-graduate work and giving preference to new entrants, of whom school-leavers, of course, form the great majority. The recurrent and equipment grants to finance these developments, which are dealt with on page 38 of the White Paper, now amount to no less than £1,790 million, which now includes nearly £280 million which has been added for price increases since the White Paper was published. By 1976–77 the recurrent grant per student will be 98 per cent. of the comparable figure for 1971–72. This difference of 2 per cent. should not rule out all possibility of improvements and new developments, and I would submit to your Lordships that it is to be expected, surely, as universities expand at the rate which I have described, that there becomes greater scope for economies of scale.
Our aim is to enhance the variety of the courses and patterns of study that are available, so that they may always he relevant to the needs of young people as these change over the years. Our aim is also to help candidates see what is available and to judge wisely how to choose within higher education for their own individual needs, and thus we hope to further what the 1944 Education Act called "the progressive development of institutions devoted to that purpose", since it is upon the higher education institutions themselves that the responsibility for the quality and diversity of higher education rests. It is here, I suggest to the House, that the new Diploma of Higher Education can also afford new elements for flexibility and choice. In future, school leavers will not have to commit themselves to a minimum of three years higher education before they can hope to obtain a qualification. Instead they will be able to enter two-year courses and decide later whether or not to continue further either full or part-time. If the plans for unit based courses now being developed by many institutions come to fruition the choice of subject matter and combinations of subjects can

1205
be wider and students will be able to change the direction of their studies as their interests or career aspirations develop.
Because the teaching force is currently growing at the rate of 20,000 teachers per annum we shall not need so fast a rate of growth to attain over half a million teachers by 1981, and account has been taken of this in our plans for higher education when looking at institutional changes. My Lords, this week a Circular No. 7/73 has been issued which carries higher education planning outside the universities an important stage further. It is addressed to local education authorities and asks them to consider the future development of the higher education institutions in their area in consultation with the voluntary colleges, the regional advisory councils for further education and the Area Training Organisations, and we have asked for final plans after local government reorganisation has come into effect. The fact is that a net expansion of 130,000 places is going to be needed in the English and Welsh institutions outside universities by 1981, but at the same time there will need to be a major reconsideration of the role of some of the colleges of education and their relationship with the universities, with polytechnics and with other colleges of further education. May I on this occasion recognise the wish of the voluntary colleges to see whether they can participate in the developments outside teacher training.
Finally, my Lords, I mention just three quick points which arise from the circular, and they are worth stressing. The first is the need to continue to plan in such a way as to secure the fullest economies of scale, and this will set some limit to the number of colleges which will be able to offer advanced courses. The second concerns the problems which arise, partly over residence and partly over transport, from concentrations of very large numbers of students in one area, and we hope that authorities will be able to avoid planning solutions which intensify these difficulties. Finally, we want to try to improve the distribution of opportunities for higher education so as to meet the needs of part-time students within a reasonable distance from where they live or work, and to do something
1206
to reverse the tendency of full-time students to choose to study away from home.
My Lords, taking the schools and higher education sectors together, the White Paper shows that over the 10 years up to 1981–82 expenditure could rise on these five educational sectors from £2,100 million to £3,100 million, an increase of about 50 per cent. And if we take total public spending on education throughout Great Britain, the last White Paper on public expenditure showed that this is planned to take a rising share of all public expenditure during the next five years. Perhaps it is fair to claim that in this country we have always had a suspicion about gearing our education to specific manpower needs. A good general education, with quite a lot of specialisation as well, has been the aim of our system and this is an objective which still remains firmly embedded in a great deal that our schools, colleges and universities seek to do. But perhaps it is also fair to claim that of all generations, those who have grown up since the war have come to see more clearly than ever before the importance of the education services. For this country, not rich in raw materials and no longer the centre of a great empire, has none the less limitless possibilities if we will cultivate and enhance the qualities which we know that as a people we possess.
By concentrating on the five sectors of education covered by this White Paper, my right honourable friend has sought to construct a framework for the expansion of the services for which she is responsible and we will now work with our partners in the education service to fulfil this expansion in the interests of the service and for the future of us all.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down could he clarify one point on which he touched? What facilities are to be given to existing non-graduate teachers to acquire the Bachelor of Education degree?
LORD BELSTEAD: I am sorry, I think I must answer that later on. I am not sure that anything I said was relevant to what the noble Earl said. May I think this one over and reply to it at the end of the debate?
3.56 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for introducing the White Paper with such clarity, and also, thinking of my Norfolk father, for using an Eastern Counties definition, because there they certainly have a very colourful turn of phrase. May I at the outset explain to the House that I shall not attempt to cover the whole area of the White Paper, as my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy will be taking up various points, and with such a distinguished list of speakers, all experts in their own field—including a maiden speaker whom we are delighted to see making his debut in the House to-day—I feel that I shall do justice better if I single out certain sections of the Report. This does not mean in any way that I am not concerned about the whole of the White Paper. As your Lordships will have noticed—the Minister repeated this—the White Paper is entitled A Framework for Expansion, and I think it is kindest to consider it in just that way. It is just that—a framework. In my book that is an outline on which to build, and therefore there are gaps that need to be filled.
I think that perhaps this accounts for the very small mention that the White Paper gives to the special schools. The Minister mentioned them again to-day but there is very little mention in the White Paper itself of schools for the mentally handicapped who come under the control of education, concerning the problems of the voluntary schools, the education and the social needs of youth as distinct from the schools, the transition from school to work and many other related aspects of the education service. These will be the gaps which will have to be filled in on the framework. On the general philosophy of education, I would repeat what I have said many times before and shall probably say many times more in your Lordships' House, that until we as a nation are prepared to contribute enough to the community pool our health and social services and our education will not really get the resources to which they are entitled.
The debate in the other place I thought seemed to get bogged down with too many pros and cons of expenditure. I do not intend to go into that question; but I
1208
would say to the Government that if the total money given to this great service is not going to be sufficient, then the White Paper may well try to spread the resources too thinly and, in the end, we shall get neither splendid colleges nor comfortable nursery schools. I was at one of the Midland universities last week and being taken round by the wife of the vice-chancellor. At the end of my tour she said to me, "What do you think of it?" I said, "I find it rather depressing, no less this one than other new universities". The small box-like rooms of the students, the bare brick walls and the plastic tables all seem to me to suggest that these were people who were not going to be able to enjoy the grace and elegance of living which should go with that part of one's life in higher education. Her answer was that we had to use the money as best we could. This is my point. If we have to spread resources too thinly, then we may not get exactly what we want in any one sphere.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: It will be tawdry, my Lords.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the Minister when speaking to the Schools Council said that when the Education White Paper talked about expansion it meant expansion and not contraction. For many education will start earlier, and for more than in the past it will go on longer. That is the expansion of the service at both ends. This the noble Lord has enlarged upon this afternoon. Unfortunately, when one studies the White Paper carefully—and I have been fortunate enough to discuss it with many peope on the job in schools and colleges—one is forced to the conclusion that the view expressed by the Inner London Education Authority is the correct one, that the White Paper sadly belies its title because while it does expand in one source, it certainly contracts in other angles of the service and may well provide stagnation for some.
As a campaigner for many years for the pre-school child, I welcome the development of nursery schools. Anyone who has seen the small child in its own environment and not that of the adult knows how the child blossoms socially and educationally. The need for this part of the education service has never been more

1209
acute than now—with the changing pattern of living, high-rise flats and mothers forced to go to work because of the cost of living. I often wonder whether the figures in the prices and incomes discussion that we had really revealed the fact that many mothers do have to go out to work in order to maintain a reasonable budget. For the small child in the areas of social deprivation to which the Minister referred we must give nursery places high priority. I take the Minister's point when she said that the main purpose of providing these is to enable children to learn; it is not to provide a day care service. I applaud the involvement of the parents as advocated by Plowden, picked up in the White Paper and—and we must pay tribute to this—already shown in the preschool play groups who have not waited for the White Paper or for any nursery school advancement but have been established by enterprising parents.
With all these glorious prospects in view, I looked at the heading in the nursery schools section, The Under Fives, entitled, "Resources". I read:
"… more nursery places already approved under the Urban Programme will be brought into use. Even so a substantial programme of purpose-built accommodation will be required, and … the Government propose to authorise special building programmes of £15 million each in 1974–75 and 1975–76. The effect will be to increase … expenditure on the under fives from £42 million … to … £65 million in 1976–77."
I know that if we talk about millions it is very difficult for most of us to comprehend the amount of money involved. I would only say that the school of which I am a governor, at the moment under the ROSLA scheme, is spending £90,000. For this it will get only five and a half class rooms. This is in an old building, with their not having to purchase any land, not having to make all the facilities necessary for purpose-built buildings. I would question whether the amount of money laid down in this part of the programme will produce the number of nursery places we want. I do not feel that it will in London and in the big cities. I am not wishing to detract from the proposals for expansion for nursery schools, but if hopes are built up they must be fulfilled.
Let us look at the staff who are going to care for the children, the teachers—the kingpin of the whole operation; because no matter how good the building
1210
and how good the equipment and how good the surroundings, there is no substitute for a good teacher. I recently read a definition of the good teacher, in the year 1614, as laid down in one of the Southwark schools. The ideal school-master—we must remember that women were not included then—
"shall be a man of wise, sociable and loving disposition, not hasty or furious, nor of any ill example: he shall be wise, and of good experience to discern the nature of every child, to work upon their dispositions for the greatest advantage, benefit and comfort of the child, to learn with the love of his book."
I would suggest that that still remains a pretty good definition of the good teacher. The White Paper emphasises over and over again the role that the teaching profession will have to play—indeed, in the induction process to which the Minister has referred. Yet I understand that no real attempt has been made by the Secretary of State to consult with teacher organisations on matters on which consultation has already taken place with the L.E.A.'s. Unless you gain the support and assistance of the people on the job, the White Paper plan will not come to fruition. These organisations believe that the long-term proposals for the size of the teaching profession fall short of the true number which will be required by 1981 to staff the schools adequately. Replying to the debate in the other place, the Minister, Mr. St. John-Stevas, said:
"Honourable gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite seem to be obsessed with the question of quantity of teachers, whereas the White Paper is concerned with their quality."
These are splendid sentiments and I should be the last to suggest that we do not want quality but if we do not have smaller classes there will not be quality of education. So we must be concerned with the reality of numbers. This must come into the discussion. The Minister dismissed the N.U.T. estimate by saying:
"… it is not realistic simply to add together all the possible demands."
am not quite clear how else you can discover what are the staff numbers, and I should think that any industry which did not add together all the possible demands would soon be out of business.
My Lords, for years, smaller classes both in primary and in secondary schools have been promised by successive Governments, but not too far from this very building I could take your Lordships to a scene where children are being educated

1211
in groups of 40 in very old buildings. It is no wonder that we are turning out a frightening proportion of non-readers and semi-illiterates. Where are the teachers to come from? This is a very relevant point. The White Paper, in the section on Colleges of Education, has this paragraph, which the Minister referred to to-day:
"Many of the … colleges are … comparatively small and inconveniently located for development into larger general purpose institutions. Some … will … be needed exclusively for purposes of teacher education with increasing emphasis on in-service rather than initial training."
This one appreciates is very important, as in-service is one of the splendid sections in the White Paper. But it goes on to say that some of the colleges
"may find a place in the expansion of teachers' and professional centres."
I am not quite clear what that is. It continues:
"Some must face the possibility that in due course they will have to be converted to new purposes "—
These purposes are not specified. It continues:
"… some may need to close."
I find this paragraph very disturbing. What is this strange obsession that everything that is large must be good and everything that is small must be inferior? The fashionable word is "viable". These colleges were those which responded to the original call not too long ago to expand to meet the teacher supply problem. I can remember talking to principals and staffs in colleges where the premises were being used for the whole period in order to meet the appeal of the Government. Are these now to be converted to some unnamed purpose or are these going to be closed? At its highest it seems ungrateful; at its lowest it is unwise planning.
Is it correct—perhaps the Minister will reply to this—that the authorities have to submit their plans by November, 1973? In London, for instance, this would certainly make it practically impossible to consult all the colleges of education, the voluntary colleges and all the other higher educational institutions which will be affected by the diversification. The unions feel—perhaps they are wrong about this; I hope that they are—that this insistence by the local education authorities on plans being
1212
presented at this speed will actually jeopardise the supply of teachers. What we all know is that there is nothing more destructive to morale or quality of work than uncertainty. A friend of mine was an architect in the employ of the then Middlesex County Council and he said, "For four years we all underwent the trauma of knowing that Middlesex was to disappear. The younger men left the service; the older men feared that they would be declared redundant or retired. But, totally, the quality of the work suffered". My Lords, we must not let this happen to the colleges of education, because of some measure of uncertainty which the White Paper will produce. So I ask the Government to think very carefully before they interfere with the colleges.
I feel that many of the figures about teacher supply are based on the assumption that more graduates will come into the profession. How can they afford to do this? In London we are suffering a really serious decline in the number of teachers of graduate level, heads of departments, who just cannot afford to live in London. Each time we have an appointments board we interview people who accept positions and then later have to write to say that they cannot afford to buy a house in London. If they sell a house in Manchester for £9,000 what will that sum buy in London, where my own small terraced house would sell for £33,000? They have to refuse a post that otherwise they would take. It is idle to prepare a White Paper on grand future plans if at the same time the Government do not look at the practical element of dealing with something like the London allowance for teachers. I noted that the contribution to the teaching of mature students is widely valued and again the Minister made reference to this. I can certainly vouch for their quality and contribution, but will this supply be maintained? We learn that some of them exist—I emphasise the word "exist"—on grants of £600 a year. Can your Lordships imagine trying in London to buy books or the necessary things a teacher has to have? And remember, you have still to supply your own materials for use in the schools and find lodging, transport and food, all on £600 a year. There is no uniformity of grant from one authority to another. Again I am disappointed that the White Paper

1213
did not deal with that matter, although I appreciate that it is only a framework.
The section on the induction of teachers has my unqualified support, but I was not quite clear what the Government are saying in the White Paper about the licensed teacher—a term which I very much deplore and which we discussed during the debate on the James Report. The White Paper says the Government do not support the alternative proposal, so I am not clear whether that means conversely that they accept the licensed teacher. No proposal must be accepted for the provision of new courses and qualifications for teachers which falls short of the standard regarded by the profession as essential. This is a profession which too often in the past has suffered from attempts to dilute it. Look at the phrase which the noble Lord himself selected, which I thought quite dramatic—we are talking about the teachers:
"This goal is no less than building a body of teachers well prepared, academically and professionally, to sustain confidently the formidable task to which they are called."
I thought those were splendid words. But against this I have to quote the words of the President of the Headmasters' Association in a speech last week. Himself the headmaster of a large London school, he said:
"Within the education system we have, I think, attempted changes and innovations which have proved beyond our capacity for adaptation."
I have great reservations about some of the changes envisaged in the White Paper. Expansion in education—yes. But this must never be dominated by reasons of expediency.
4.15 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I cannot say that I regard this document we are discussing as a very inspiring one. But then, I do not regard the Government as being very inspiring either, and the products that we have had from the Department of Education and Science since 1970 have not filled anyone with much enthusiasm. So I suppose that it is some little advance that we have in this framework something for which we on these Benches can at least give a modest cheer. I think that what the White Paper says is more or less right, although I have considerable reservations
1214
about some parts of it. What I am very depressed about—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was too—is the amount that is left out; the fact that it is only a framework; that we are not getting any lead from the Government on the more important matters of education. The White Paper starts with the most colossal non sequitur on this particular line. In the second paragraph it says that since the Government took office more than two years ago they have been reviewing the direction in which the service is growing, its objectives and its priorities. It goes on to mention several topics and then, at the beginning of paragraph 3, says:
"It is therefore on matters of scale, organisation and cost rather than educational content that attention is mainly focused in this White Paper."
In fact, this does not follow from the argument. If the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, doubts me, would he like to try substituting the following sentence:
"It is therefore on matters of scale, organisation and cost, as well as on educational content, that attention is mainly focussed in this White Paper"?
If it had been drafted in that way we should have had a far better White Paper. Therefore, although I hope that I shall not trespass on your Lordships' time for very long, I am going to trespass a little outside the bounds of the White Paper as such and talk about some of the things which seem to me to be major topics—and minor ones too—in the education field to which we should be paying attention at this moment. Also, I wish to touch on the work of the Labour Party's Study Group contained in the Party's Green Paper, Higher and Further Education. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, omitted to give her Party's Paper a "plug", may I say that I think this a very interesting piece of work. Although I have reservations about some parts of it, I think it is a positive contribution to the debate about education.
I do not propose to say much about pre-school education. We have all talked about it for a long time. Many of us have urged the expansion which the Government are now giving and we very much welcome that expansion. I should like to make one minor point in connection with this, and particularly in connection with the major topic of education in communities, which I think is one

1215
of the major discussion points about the future of education. There is very little about it in the White Paper and it is something upon which we should be concentrating. I think it quite possible that, with the expansion of pre-school education, we might be able to save some of those small village schools which otherwise are due for the axe. If we can use the space and have pre-school education there, we may be able to keep some more of these schools which foster such a valuable sense of community, particularly in the countryside.
Regarding special schools, we welcome particularly the new building programme and what the noble Lord said about it to-day; and indeed, integration, where possible, into normal schools is something we want to see a great deal more of. But, still, I must say that I regret bitterly that we have as yet no special Commission or inquiry into handicapped children in general. We have had these arguments in this House before. The noble Lord knows well that the continuing Departmental Committee, which, incidentally, was set up by the last Government, is not the special Commission which Mr. Heath pledged before the Election: that is one Election pledge needlessly and sadly broken.
On secondary schools, we are pleased again to see the building ban raised. It should, I think, never have been put on, particularly since I feel that the Department of Education and Science, and especially the Secretary of State, has a very ambivalent attitude to this business of freedom of choice of education. I will say a little more about that later. I should have thought that one thing the local education authorities were uniquely qualified to do was to make up their minds how the money that was given to them for bricks and mortar for expansion or the bringing up to date of schools, should be sent. That is something which could usefully be devolved further. We on these Benches want to see the further growth of "comprehensivisation" and the right model for a given place. Comprehensive schools have been done a disservice in some places by the introduction of comprehensive schools in a model which does not particularly work, but I, for one, do not believe there is any place where, if the resources are pro-
1216
perly worked out, some form of nonselective education cannot be made to work, and to work extremely well. That is what parents want. As I think the noble Lord knows, I did a survey at the time of the 1970 Election, and of all parents of children under 16 in this country 56 per cent. were in favour of comprehensive schools and 36 per cent. were against: and I should think that the majority in favour of comprehensive schools would, if anything, be rather larger now, three years later.
I wonder whether the Department of Education and Science gives enough positive help to local education authorities in devising suitable schemes. They are quick enough to turn down schemes which they regard as unsuitable, sometimes rightly, but sometimes, in my view, wrongly. But I wonder whether enough help is given if the local education authority comes along and says: "This is our situation. What do you advise we should do if we wish abolish selective education and to do away with the 11-plus?".
Another point on which we should be concentrating (I have listed it under "secondary schools", but it applies to all schools) is working conditions in the schools. This is a most important point and one about which the teachers' unions feel extremely strongly. I see no reason why schools should not be brought under the same conditions which apply to factories, offices and shops. At the moment, as noble Lords will probably be aware, there is only one room in the school which, by law, must have basic minimum standards of one kind or another, and that is the room in which the school secretary works. For teachers and children there are recommended standards, but there is no legal enforcement.
Moving on to further and higher education, I very much welcome, as I always have since the James Report first came out, the diploma of higher education. I am delighted to have seen recently in the papers that more and more universities are thinking of running courses and of validating them. I think the fears of those who thought that it would be used only as a sort of second-rate course for teachers are being proved wrong. I am delighted that this is so, because it seems to me to be a useful method of making the whole field of higher and further education more fluid, so that people can

1217
pass from one section to the other with greater ease.
I think we ought to be a little worried, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, about the possible disappearance of the smaller colleges of education. Some of them have done magnificent work. For instance, there is a small college up at Alnwick which has producedan extremely good and forward-looking form of concurrent teacher-training. It would be sad if experiments of this kind were to go by the board. I am indeed a little worried about the whole control of our teacher-training. It seems to me that we are rearing a bureaucratic structure for the training of teachers which would not be tolerated, and is not tolerated, in any other profession. I think we need to have a close look at this. I also want to say (I know that this is going a little outside the brief) that we ought to be paying attention to the problems confronting the colleges of art and design at this moment: the questions of staffing, which have been raised and discussed fairly recently in another place; and the problem of the new qualifications of entry levels, about which I have an Unstarred Question down under "No Day Named" on your Lordships' Order Paper. This raises the whole question of whether we are not making the qualifications for entry into too many of our educational establishments more and more rigid at a time when they should be becoming more and more flexible.
My Lords, I think we ought to look at the whole question of grants for students, particularly married women, the disgraceful situation with regard to the failure to raise those grants, and the abolition of parental contribution and the means test. I should like to make one particular plea here. I am in favour of student grants and against student loans and I was delighted that Mr. St. John-Stevas said, as reported in the paper today, that there was no thought at the moment of producing student loans instead of student grants. However, there is one small field where there might be a case. If the Government are going to continue saying that it is too expensive to do away with parental contributions and the means test for student grants, I think they ought to produce a scheme which allows them to grant interest-free loans to those students who genuinely
1218
cannot get their parents to help them to pay their contribution and are therefore being robbed of higher education. There are only a few cases, but there are some very hard cases indeed. A solution must be found to this problem and I think that is a possible solution which the Government ought to examine, if they have not done so already.
Those, my Lords, are a few of the minor points which, over a period of time, in discussion, in correspondence and in debates, have been raised about the whole education scene at the present time. I hope that there will be room at some time in the near future—though maybe it is too much to hope—for the Government to issue a Green Paper or a White Paper dealing with some of the more important subjects which are not being touched upon: the democratisation of education; the rights of governors and managers; representation of teachers and parents on boards of governors and managers; the powers of headmasters, and the length of tenure of headmasters. All these matters, I think, need to be talked about. We are trying to educate people for a democratic society. I do not think we can do that except in some form of democratic structure.
Then, my Lords, there is the whole European dimension. I will not talk about that now, except to say that there appear to be a large number of questions which going into Europe raises in the education field and which we are not debating sufficiently, though, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, we shall have an opportunity of debating at least one facet of this subject in the near future. I think the whole question of education and community, of integrating schools in communities and communities in schools; of using resources for the benefit of adults as well as of children; of what kind of democratic control a community should have over the schools in its areas, over the relationship between a community and a school, should be fully debated. We should be talking a lot more about choice. I am not at all clear that the Secretary of State is very logical on questions of choice. She talks a lot about parental choice, choice of schools, but, as I have said before, there is a degree to which local education authorities have been cheated of a chance

1219
to use responsible choice in using the resources which are allocated to them.
It seems strange that a Secretary of State who goes on about choice in such a way should have used such an immense hammer to crack the nut of school meals and school milk, thus taking away choice in an extremely small but rather valuable portion of the educational system. We may see an attrition of choice in the plans for the colleges of education, particularly the fact that many of the smaller ones are possibly to go by the board. There is room for a debate on this subject.
Another subject we ought to be talking about slightly more than we are is that, although I am thoroughly in favour of raising the school-leaving age, I do not think the adaptation of the curriculum and what goes on in schools should be entirely devoted to what happens in the last year. The fact that the school-leaving age has been raised to 16 should make us look again at the whole area between 13 and 16, 13 being roughly the moment in the school life when there seems to be a strong revolt against schools and the school curriculum as it is at the moment. There should be a rethinking of the curriculum during those three years as a result of ROSLA. A more flexible pattern is being thought about in connection with the 16 to 19 age group, and particularly in the Labour Green Paper that I mentioned.
Another subject that we should be looking at is a whole new look at examinations: this is not just "bashing" examinations as forms of assessment, but asking what is the place of examinations in the whole educational system? Is it right that entrance qualifications to universities should dictate the whole course of the school curriculum below that level, even though a very small percentage of people are going into the universities? What is the relationship of education to the pieces of paper which are more and more demanded by various professions as being absolutely essential? I have mentioned the problem of the colleges of art and design in this particular context, where we should be making more flexible what in fact we seem to be making more rigid. I hope that in the course of this debate noble Lords who produce such a wealth
1220
of expertise among them, as one can see by the names of the list of speakers, are not going to confine themselves entirely to the White Paper, but are going to talk about some of that expansion for which the White Paper rightly says it is providing a framework.
4.34 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, the White Paper has been attacked as being a dull Paper. I doubt whether White Papers should be anything else. I want to try and suggest some reasons why this might be so. I think it is so because the White Paper is really the issue of the last battle orders for a crusade which began 15 years ago. I say "15 years ago" though of course it is a very old crusade. It is a crusade which was a drive through education to create a greater equality of opportunity. That is why at the beginning of this century a system of secondary state education was conceived as a ladder to hard-working boys and girls of talent from whatever class they came. That is why scholarships, bursaries and free places were awarded in grammar schools and universities. That is why the school-leaving age has been progressively raised.
Conservative, Liberal and Labour Parties have all marched in this crusade. But towards the end of the 1950s the crusade changed its character. Until then most people had accepted that what mattered most was the chance to go to school. Progress consisted in lengthening the time they stayed at school and improving the teaching there. That was the philosophy behind the Act of 1944. But suddenly people began to doubt whether this created greater equality of opportunity. They did more than doubt: they argued the reverse was taking place. They argued that the country had created a system which, far from promoting, in fact obstructed equality of opportunity. It was a system of two nations separated by the 11-plus examination, 30 per cent. going to grammar schools and 70 per cent. to secondary modern schools.
How had this come about? It came about because of the immense influence in the 1940s of Professor Burt's psychological theories. Professor Burt believed that by using intelligence tests you could determine not only how intelligent a child was, or that one child was more intelligent than another at any given time, but

1221
that you could also classify a child for life. Professor Burt thought that he had proved that a human being's I.Q. remained constant throughout his life. This Platonic theory inspired the Spens Report. Just as Plato thought that children should be classed as gold, silver or bronze, so Spens recommended that children should be placed in a grammar school, a secondary modern school, or a technical school, at the age of 11, according to their I.Q. Few people in education any longer believe in Burt's theory of intelligence. Most of us believe that the final decision about the child's ability to develop should be postponed for as long as possible—certainly longer than the age of 11 and, if possible, as late as 16.
There was something else that happened in the late 1950s. Some of us argued that higher education was grotesquely inadequate for the numbers who were coming out of the new sixth forms. As a result of this the famous Commission of Lord Robbins was set up. The Robbins Report concentrated on convincing Parliament and the public that a massive increase in numbers of higher education was needed. When one looks back to that time the fact of setting up the Commission changed people's minds, and that particular battle was won even before the Commission reported. Even so, there were many people who then, as now, thought that the scale of expansion in higher education which was envisaged in the Robbins Report was grotesque. I remember a Labour Party study under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, which was inspired by the brilliant work of Professor John Vaizey, which reported six months or so before the Robbins Report came out. The Taylor Report predicted that by the 1980s there would be 80 universities. The Report was dismissed as Utopian. There will not be 80 universities by the 1980s, but if you add up the number of university institutions, and add to those the numbers of polytechnics which, by the way things are going in terms of their expansion and the expenditure envisaged in the White Paper, will be the equivalent, at any rate in cost, of universities, you will find that you have just about 80 institutions catering for full-time students. In the field of higher education the White Paper has carried up to the 1980s
1222
the implementation of the Robbins Report.
In the White Paper there is another echo of that crusade in the fifties: the emphasis on nursery education. Time and again it has been shown that disadvantaged children start in an elementary school three or four years behind their contemporaries in their abilities to learn. The nursery school programme is yet another institutional attempt to redress this balance. Everyone concerned with education must congratulate the Secretary of State in giving this area priority, however much it may restrict the expansion of whatever particular field of education he is interested in.
To sum up, what the White Paper celebrates is the creation in this country of education in abundance. From nursery school to higher education, all along the line there is now to be an abundance of education; and by the 1980s we shall have established a pretty satisfactory structure in nursery, primary and secondary school education, and indeed a very great expansion in higher education. I recognise that there is bound to be a Party conflict on the issue of comprehensive secondary education. Actually I believe that quite a sizeable part of this dispute is shadow-boxing, because schooling is determined to a far greater extent by buildings than most of us like to imagine and we cannot transform alt secondary schools overnight into all-through 2,000 place comprehensives. But I think we have something more important in the bag than the actual structure of secondary education. Thanks partly to Lord Boyle but mainly to Mr. Crosland, who expanded the colleges of education beyond all recognition, we now have an abundance of teachers. When people say seriously to me, "What is to become of all the graduates churned out by higher education?" I reply, "They are going to teach in the schools, I hope". Far too few graduates have been going into teaching in schools during recent years. This, I think, with the expansion in graduate numbers, will be one thing that will improve. Now we are getting reasonably sized classes in our primary schools as well as in our secondary schools. Examples could be cited to the contrary, of course. Naturally, there is room for improvement, and always will be; but we

1223
have in sight an abundance of education for all.
Having celebrated the triumphs of the White Paper, I should now like to turn to its deficiencies. It is deficient in thought and in vision, for it does not recognise the very serious doubt which is arising in the minds of those who took part in the crusade to which I was alluding earlier. The doubt is this: how far in fact can inequalities in our social system be remedied by educational reform? Many of us are beginning to feel that schools and colleges are being asked to perform an impossible task if the full burden of this inequality is put upon their shoulders. We find ourselves doubting whether comprehensive education or nursery schools, or widening the range of opportunities in higher education, are in themselves going to increase materially the opportunities of children in the working class. We find ourselves asking whether all improvements in education do not have one consequence—the improvement in the conditions of the middle classes. That is why I think we have now to begin to think in terms of a new philosophy in education. I would call it a philosophy of extremes. It is at the extremes of the system that we need to do most.
Let me try to expand on this. I am disappointed to find no reference in the White Paper to educational priority areas. We have a crisis in our urban centres. In our country there are half a million children who come from very poor parents and who suffer from malnutrition—a malnutrition which begins in the womb; hence they perform badly in school. In every great city, and particularly in London, the size of the trouble and the proportion of the disadvantage rises as richer families move out of the centre of the cities. These are the multiple-deprivation families that I am referring to, and they suffer from multiple handicaps. They are not always the same people, of course; but the families and individuals who break out of this system are replaced by others who fall into it. They are usually large families; families which no longer have a wage-earner, or who have a wage-earner with a bad record or one who belongs to a declining work group. They live in areas where the housing is sub-standard and where the libraries are badly stocked, so that
1224
cleverer boys and girls do not get the books they need. The performance of children at school is determined to a large extent, as research has shown, by their home conditions and the schools cannot alter the home conditions which create the children.
People often think of large families as being very jolly groups in which the brothers and sisters help each other, but the more siblings you have older than yourself the greater the disadvantage you suffer, because the less time parents spend with each child, and the less food each child gets, the more he falls behind his contemporaries. It is not as if the schools have not got the resources: in some difficult schools there is a 1:14 teacher/pupil ratio, and 1:20 is not uncommon. But the disadvantaged hardly ever catch up at school. Equality of opportunity simply recreates inequality. Our educational system becomes a static system and not a liberating one.
Some of our younger teachers, faced with this reality, put forward a radical plan. Why not, they argue, have open access to every institution? Why not abolish all examinations? Why not let children do just as they like instead of imposing middle-class values upon them? In my view, these teachers have forgotten the first purpose of education, which is more basic even than creating a greater equality of opportunity. They have forgotten that we attend and endure education in order to have our minds trained —trained in the skills required by the society in which we live. These teachers, in their idealism, have forgotten that we need examinations (the examinations which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was asking us to reconsider) not only to certificate doctors and lawyers but for the innumerable skills which an advanced society needs. I would, on the contrary, argue that now is the time, when abundance of education is in sight, to start raising educational standards. We may well need to change our educational methods, but let us not deny the children of the working classes the skills which could be theirs if they could acquire them. Let us not kick down the ladder by which most of us have risen.
There is another reason for pressing for even higher standards. No advanced industrial society, as we know it, is able to operate without an élite. There are

1225
all sorts of ways in which we can make this élite more open, more receptive to public opinion and more aware of the need to balance one kind of good against another; for instance, to balance the growth of the economy against another kind of good, the need to preserve our heritage in town and countryside and to preserve a humane way of life. But there has to be an élite. There have to be some 10,000 people at any given time in the most crucial positions and a further—shall be say?—50,000 employed in important positions in the country. We cannot sacrifice the intelligence, the cleverness and the efficiency of the minds of this elite in order to pursue what may well appear to be questionable theories of obtaining equality simply through educational reform alone. That is why, when I was speaking of the value of educational priority areas and about the philosophy of extremes, I suggest that far more resources should be poured not merely into the schools in these areas but into these areas themselves as a way of redressing balances. You cannot isolate education from the social system of the country, and it is precisely because people have been doing that in recent years that we have had some distortions in our national institutions. Somehow—and it has always been difficult, and never more so than now—we have to reconcile the need for equality of opportunity and the type of education appropriate to the mass of children with the need to train to the highest point the skills of a few children.
Many of your Lordships will be asking this afternoon a disturbing question: will in fact the students be forthcoming for the next massive expansion in higher education? Your Lordships will probably ask: what do universities make of the fall-off in applications? Is it not true that there are empty places in science departments? It is indeed true, and we in the universities frankly do not know whether we shall hit the student targets that have been set; nor, I imagine, do our colleagues in the polytechnics. It is too early to say yet whether the statistics of applications show a genuine downward trend or whether they show merely a hiccup. But even if it is downward, the new birthrate bulge which will emerge in the late 'seventies may well reverse the trend.
1226
But the universities are facing a problem which they have never really had to face before. It is this: they have an exceedingly inflexible staff. You are appointed to teach physics at the age of 25; you are on probation for three years, and at the end of that time you are given tenure, which in normal universities is expected to last until the age of 67. But the student demand is the very reverse of inflexible; it is highly volatile. In the 'fifties there was a rush towards science, and the U.G.C., quite properly, built a large number of laboratories and other accommodation for science departments. It is now difficult to fill these places because there has been a flight from science. Let me give another example. Last summer, the year in which this country was going into Europe, 10,000 fewer children took "O" levels in European modern languages. One can easily guess what effect that will have on the intake into our modern language departments in two years' time. I therefore deduce that quite a number of dons have to be prepared in middle age, as people in other professions have to be prepared, either to re-train or to be made redundant, and I also deduce that universities have to modify their curriculum.
This I think is far truer of the old universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London than of the new. For, whether we like it or not, it is Oxford and Cambridge and a handful of other institutions which take the cream of our students, and it is they who have made the fewest modifications of what they teach undergraduates. Of course they do not need to make any modifications: they have only to offer what they are offering now; they have only to teach what they teach superlatively well now, to find that their places are filled. It is perfectly true that the old "crack" against universities that they are ivory towers, out of touch with modern civilisation, out of touch with the needs of industry, is absolute, total rubbish. You only have to pick up the Universities Handbook and you can see the vast variety of courses which are of great vocational value. But how many of those are in the older places, and how many of the older places have been modified just slightly to bring in some of these new techniques and these new ways of

1227
studying old problems? How often have they done this?
I think of the study of politics. If you go to the university at Brunel, you will find there a young ex-Treasury official teaching from the very start how government "cuts up the cake" and the political problems, the social problems, the organisational problems, the administrative problems and the in-fighting on the Front Bench which is an integral part of government. You will find that as part of the curriculum in the first year, and you will find introduced at once the quantitative techniques which show how in fact modern government works and how the Treasury relates in a practical sense to the other Departments. I sometimes wonder whether we have quite got rid, in some of our older departments of government, of the study of what are called "Second Chambers"—namely, your Lordships' House and other comfortable institutions.
Sir Eric Ashby once said that more does not mean worse, but more does mean different. I ask myself whether we are going to be able to organise higher education as it is now, when the expansion envisaged in the White Paper is completed. We should then have 750,000 students, nearly half of whom would be in universities; that is to say double the amount there are now. One in five of that age group will be receiving full-time higher education, and for every job that graduates now consider to be the sort of job that someone with a degree should get, there will be two graduates available to fill that job.
So by the end of the 1980's we shall be spending over a thousand million pounds on higher education. I venture to think that we shall soon find great pressures upon us for organisational change. Some people will urge us to turn the U.G.C. into a Commission to cover the polytechnics as well as universities. If that were done the committee as it is now would be a very different organisation; it would be able to give very much less personal attention to the needs of any one institution and it would be compelled to impose even more inflexible norms than it does now upon universities.
I think it would work, but what would not work would be a committee in which all institutions of higher education were
1228
put under the same umbrella, and that may be why the Labour Party study group has just come out with its notion of regionalising higher education. They urge this on the grounds that scarce resources could be rationalised. I myself am not really convinced that any major economies would take place. And let there be no doubt that regionalisation without safeguards would arouse the very strongest opposition within the universities. They would fear that their standards would be eroded. I must confess that I do not quite see that it would be to anyone's advantage if Cambridge simply became the largest institution in the higher education system of the region of East Anglia. But regionalisation could have one advantage: there could be a certain number of recognised élite institutions which could concentrate on work of the highest excellence.
There is one astonishing omission in the White Paper, if I may insert a barb into the noble Lord's flank. It is that there is no reference of any significance to the Open University, nor, I think, did the noble Lord make any reference to the Open University. We all know that this is an institution which really is despised in the Department of Education and Science—a cuckoo in the nest—and yet here is an institution which has made a remarkable introduction into the higher education system of the country and which is producing many new methods of looking at assumptions. May I say that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has recognised this and that tomorrow the Vice-Chancellor of the Open University will be attending his first meeting as a full member of the future Vice-Chancellors' Committee.
I should like to finish by saying this. If we are to have a philosophy of education for the future which would inspire that remarkable band of civil servants who have served education in Whitehall from the days of Sir Robert Morant to those of Mr. Toby Weaver, may I commend the Government this evening to my philosophy of extremes: extreme help not only in education but in every sphere of the areas of gross deprivation in our cities; extreme solicitude for raising standards now that we have abundance of education in sight.
I raise these questions simply because those of us who have pressed for greater

1229
educational opportunities are to-day in a quandary. The immense sums of money spent on scientific and technological information have not yet paid off in terms of greater productivity in industry. I think it was Sir Alec Cairncross who had some harsh words to say about whether our great investment in pure science was not a way of "keeping up with the Joneses" by way of Nobel Prizes in America. Again, the increased sums spent on increasing student numbers are not yet paying off in giving working-class children a greater opportunity to improve their lot. If two of the three main reasons for extending education are suspect, only the third reason remains. That third reason is a religious faith: a faith simply that education is a good in itself; the faith that inspired Matthew Arnold to believe that it was worth studying for its own sake, the best that has been thought of and known in the world; a faith that purely the study of how scholars work is a good thing to understand; a faith that in fact the great marvels of science should be understood by those who can penetrate their mysteries. But how long will Governments go on paying for faith? We have to think of new ways of coping with those first two problems that I raised: the preservation and the increase of excellence, and again a new way of looking at how we can turn equality of opportunity, partly through education, into a reality. May I apologise to the noble Lord if I am not here at the winding up, but I have a headmasters' conference in the University this evening which I must attend, although I hope I shall be able to be here for the end.
5.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I start by thanking the Minister, my noble friend Lord Belstead, for introducing this debate. I have been very well briefed by my noble kinswoman, Lady Masham of Ilton, on what I ought to say on this occasion and on what I ought not to say. She took time off from thinking up supplementary questions on serum hepatitis B to tell me that above all I must not be controversial. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that it is extremely difficult to say anything about education without appearing controversial to somebody at some time, so I beg your Lordships' indulgence on the occasion of this my maiden speech. It is not my
1230
intention to be controversial and I hope that anything I say of that nature your Lordships may consider rather as constructive comment. Some noble Lords may consider education to be an inappropriate subject for a maiden speech for that very reason, but I hope that as vice-chairman of the Education Committee of a medium-sized county which has both rural and urban areas, something of what I say may be of interest to your Lordships. I should like to stress at the very outset that what I say about my own authority, I do not say in the form of some parochial pleading, but simply because I can speak of my own authority with first-hand experience. I am quite certain that there must be other areas of the country which have the same problems as we have.
May I start at the very beginning of a child's schooling? I agree with all that previous speakers have said in giving a welcome to nursery education. I do not think that I need go into the reasons for this, as they are obvious to everybody. I am sure that the Secretary of State is right in coming down in favour of part-time nursery education for the majority, although provision for children in special need to attend full-time has also to be made. I am equally sure that the idea of nursery classes rather than nursery schools is preferable. That seems to me to be sound both educationally and in the use of resources. Nor have I any quarrel with paragraph 28, to which the Minister alluded in his opening speech, about disadvantaged children. I am glad to note, as he said in his introduction, that areas of social deprivation can now include rural as well as urban areas. I am certain in my own mind that a child who comes from some isolated farm or cottage, miles from anywhere, who may be the only child of his age, a single child, or who has elder brothers and sisters who may be at school all day, and who does not see another child of his own age from dawn to dusk may be as equally deprived as children who come from slum areas. Not that these children "from up the Dales" are quite so slow as some people may think.
I am reminded of the apocryphal story of a small one-teacher village school in our area where the headmistress was taken ill and a substitute teacher was sent out from the local town. She found it very

1231
difficult to get much out of these children, and there was one child in particular who seemed to say nothing to her all day long. In the end she found a picture of a sheep in one of her textbooks and showed it to little Tommy. Pointing out the sheep to him she asked him what it was. Whereupon a look of great puzzlement came over him. His eyebrows were furrowed in concentration and he said not a word. So again she asked him what it was and he looked equally bewildered. Then she said, "Come along, Tommy, you must see them all over the hills on your way to school, all over your farm; it's a sheep." He looked at her with a look of amazement. "Nae, miss, of course it's a sheep; but I can't reckon as to what sort it is. It has horns, so it can't be a Wensleydale. But they're straight, so it can't be a Swaledale and it don't look like a Masham. I give over, miss, what sort of sheep is it?" To which of course she had to look blank in her turn. The other day I went to one of our remote village schools, miles from anywhere, and there was considerable indignation there. The children were learning to read and one of the things they were reading was "G" for goat; and one little boy had noticed that the goat in the drawing had four teats whereas everybody knew perfectly well that goats only had two.
There is a third group of deprived children I should like to see added to this list; that is, the children of Service families. They in the nature of things are moved very much from school to school in the course of their career and I feel that full-time nursery education would benefit such children enormously.
Paragraph 29 of the White Paper refers to the role of parents. That, too, I welcome. Circular 2/73 of the Department of Education and Science was sent to all local authorities and enlarges on the provision of nursery education. This has a paragraph on the very same subject from which I should like to quote. It says:
"Authorities are asked to do everything possible to extend opportunities for collaboration, particularly through the provision of amenities which make it easier to welcome parents into schools and which enable parents to participate in their work."
That struck me as being an admirable ideal and my first reaction was that one
1232
perhaps could provide extra car parks for parents' cars, cloakrooms, and extra rooms in which parents could sit out and teach or play with the children. However, on reading further in the same circular, paragraph 21 draws the attention of the authorities to the present cost limit of £305 per place. That, I am afraid, knocks any such schemes on the head.
There will be difficulties with nursery education, particularly in the scattered rural areas. Here I should like to disagree with something that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, namely, the opportunity of keeping small village schools open by reason of having nursery classes there. Again I am speaking of my own area, but I am afraid that this would be impracticable since schools in our area seem to number up to about 60 children on roll which gives an age range of some eight children, though parents do not always manage to produce a child every year and you get some age groups which are larger than others. If one takes that as an average, which means you take 100 per cent. of the four-year olds attending 50 per cent. of the time, you are left with four children and half as many three-year olds leaving you with a class of six or seven children and it would be difficult to provide either the staff or the necessary adaptations to do that. This is obviously something for authorities with a rural population to think of. Another problem is that of transport. I notice in the White Paper and in Circular 2/73 that there is no mention of transport. I am aware that the Secretary of State has a Working Party at the moment considering problems of school transport, and I hope that this matter will be considered along with the other matter of school ages.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was worried about the butter being spread too thinly. I hope that while nursery expansion goes ahead, it is not at the expense of early provision of satisfactory buildings and other necessities for children of compulsory school age. Paragraphs 5 and 35 of the White Paper refer to the lessening problem of basic needs, or "roofs over heads", as the noble Minister said earlier. We have not found this to be the case in our area, and at the moment we have reason to doubt whether basic needs are being met, particularly in the secondary field. I understand that is

1233
the experience of some other authorities. We are not entirely the scattered areas of the Dales; we have a huge growth area on the borders of Teesside and the industrial areas of the West Riding, with commuter and dormitory growth, which is giving us grounds for great concern. The overcrowding in some secondary schools in this area is of the region of 18 per cent. to 25 per cent. I have always greatly welcomed the emphasis put by successive Governments on the replacement of outdated primary schools, and that emphasis became particularly apparent in the building programme scheduled for 1973–74. I wonder if this impetus is being maintained.
In my authority we still have over 100 pre-1902 primary schools to be replaced, and I am sure this must also be the case throughout the country. I want to make it plain to your Lordships that I am not complaining about the slice of the cake which my own authority receives; in fact I think that recently we may not only have received our slice of the cake but also have got the single cherry which sat on top of it. It is the fact that the overall cake is not large enough of which I complain, and I hope that not only may the cake be larger but that it may be covered with cherries for all the authorities.
Paragraphs 41 to 43 of the White Paper refer to special schools. I was pleased that the noble Lord the Minister said that these buildings were going to go on, and I am delighted that these schools, too, should qualify for replacement and renewal. But I hope that local authorities with a child who is physically handicapped may feel that whenever possible that child should go to a normal school, wherever small adaptations can be made, rather than to a special school. My admiration is unbounded for the teachers in schools for the mentally handicapped, and especially for those who are now teaching children who not so long ago were considered as ineducable. I was very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, raised the future of some of the smaller colleges of education, and I have no doubt that staff in these smaller colleges are very concerned about their future. In my authority there is a college of education which was once regarded as temporary. It was then provided with permanent extensions and
1234
its future seemed assured, in spite of its very small size. Now the future is in doubt again.
I am glad that the Secretary of State is examining the detailed provision of full-time teachers in training, and I wonder whether it might be possible for some of the smaller colleges mentioned in paragraph 153, which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, quoted, experienced in the training of teachers for infants and juniors, to have a role in the full-time training of teachers for nursery and infant children and in conversion courses for qualified teachers who are not experienced in nursery and infant work.
There is much more I could say about the White Paper. My noble kinswoman, Lady Masham, said that I must time my speech to last between ten minutes and a quarter of an hour, so I see I am going to get a welcome on that account. My Lords, I should like to give the White Paper a very general welcome. It certainly puts more on to the shoulders of the local education authorities who are already very much at full stretch, not only with the work that they have to do as a matter of course, but also with much additional work because of local government reorganisation. But I am sure that they can meet the challenge. It will be a tough job. I was delighted to see that the Prime Minister recently, in addressing the Society of Education Officers, undertook that the Government would make resources available to meet expansion referred to in the White Paper. With good will and co-operation from both the Government and local education authorities, I am confident that this expansion can be achieved.
5.14 p.m.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, it falls to me to thank and congratulate the noble Earl on a most admirable maiden speech. The House has listened to it with very great interest and appreciation, and it looks forward to further collaborative enterprises between himself and his noble relative. I have never before heard anyone admitting to having his speech, as it were, edited for him by another Member of this House before he delivered it. We thank him very much, and I am sure he will manage quite well on his own in the future. I nevertheless feel that I should convey my thanks both to

1235
him and his fellow author, if I may so describe her.
We have before us a very remarkable document discussing the development of education for the next 10 years. It is, therefore, with a slight sense of nostalgia that I recall some of the other White Papers. I remember, for example, twenty years ago, long before I joined the House, your Lordships discussed a Paper in which the question of the cost of education was raised; it was about £530 million, and at that time the cost of Defence was £935 million. Since then, the cost of education has increased about fourfold and the cost of Defence has gone up by two and a half times. There was a brief period a couple of years ago when we were spending more on education than on Defence, and I find myself a little disconcerted to find that this year the cost of Defence is again greater than that of education. It was Winston Churchill who a long time ago said that a university is a more important and valuable military asset than a battleship. This perhaps is not a reason for advocating more education, but at least it may be a reason for deciding the relative merits of expenditure on Defence, as we now know it, and on the world of education.
I should like, if I may, in speaking to this Paper, to restrict myself to a few matters, particularly those concerned with the universities, from one of which I come. I was so glad that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was able to speak before me, because many of the things I would have said he has already said to your Lordships. I think that he and I must be among the very few academics who ever discuss the problem of the redeployment of labour in an academic environment. I may say that my first attempts to introduce the concept to my own academic board met with a very unresponsive reception indeed. Nevertheless, as Lord Annan has said, it is something we have to face and something which is going to be with us more and more in the future, and it would be folly for us to assume that the problem will go away if we ignore it.
There are one or two problems which make me wonder whether the White Paper is referring to the universities as I know them at all. The problems with
1236
which we are most concerned are totally unlike those to which the White Paper has addressed itself. The first problem is the question of the expansion of the universities, which is taken for granted, and this at a time when the student body is suffering more and more from the total inadequacy of the maintenance grants. This matter has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. It is a matter of enormous importance, because if it is not solved soon the whole expansion programme will grind inexorably to a halt. The Vice-Chancellors' Committee made the point to the Government a couple of years ago, that the grants then proposed were inadequate; they have been eroded more and more by inflation, and it is extremely difficult for students to manage at all on the grants they have. Particularly is this true of those unfortunate students whose grants have to be made up by parental contributions. I have found only too frequently that girls find it hard to persuade their parents to support them; they come to university totally inadequately provided for, and this is a tragedy.
Furthermore, there is often a great administrative laxity in the whole question of assessing of parental contribution. It frequently happens that the contribution is assessed on one year's income, and by the time the student comes to college the parent in question may be out of work or may have been made redundant, and the income is immediately cut down. But there is a prolonged delay before the appropriate reassessment can be made and the student be adequately supported. I think everybody feels very strongly indeed that this is a matter of great importance. Unless the Government face it promptly and effectively, all their grand plans for the education of students in universities will in fact come to nothing and the expansion programme may totally cease.
The next problem which follows from this is the effect of students grants on the provision of student halls of residence. The White Paper glosses over the question of student halls very easily, and totally inadequately. There was a time when, as a matter of course, a hail of residence was built and paid for long before the students went into it. Most of your Lordships will doubtless have lived in college buildings which date from mediaeval times and which were paid

1237
for by pious benefactors of the past. To-day we find ourselves in a position where capital grants from the Government cover no more than 25 per cent. of the cost of a place in a hall, so that the university, having few funds of its own, has to borrow the cost of the hall on the open market and is then obliged to charge the students not only the cost of maintaining the hall but the cost of the mortgage on the building itself.
When one looks at the figures, they are really quite extraordinary. At present the total notional contribution which a student is supposed to make from his grant to pay for board and lodging is about £250 a year. It now costs about £1,500 per room, if one builds on a good site without extra complications such as are apt to occur in a city. Of this, the University Grants Committee will contribute about £300, leaving about £1,200 to be borrowed on the open market. The cost of servicing such a loan for about thirty years is about £140 a year, and the cost of heating, lighting and cleaning the hall is nearly another £100. So one comes to the quite preposterous conclusion that the cost of building a hall for a student to live in, and servicing the loan with which it has to be paid for, is about £240 a year, leaving the student £100 a year with which to eat. This is so absurd that the situation clearly has to taken in hand, and something dramatic must be done. It is quite absurd for the Government to pretend that, if they make enough fuss over it, a university will somehow, quite miraculously, either persuade building societies to lend them money at uneconomic rates or, alternatively, be able in some mysterious way to get unknown benefactors to contribute the cost of student halls to match those built by people such as King Henry VI, who built part of the buildings at Cambridge.
The whole university expansion programme is predicated on the assumption that there will be somewhere for the students to live. In my own University of Manchester we have about 5,000 student rooms altogether, another 1,500 are under construction, and we are planning to build 3,500 more as soon as we can raise the funds from somewhere. This gives us about 10,000 rooms which are expected to be ready in about ten years' time. By then, according to the
1238
figures which have been given to us, the Grants Committee expect us to have something like 32,000 students in Manchester among the various component parts of the great academic precinct which comprises not only the university, the polytechnic and the college of music, but all the other components of what has rather jokingly been described as the "binary system". All these 32,000 students will be competing for the same lodgings and it is quite evident that, unless at least another 10,000 or 20,000 rooms are built, the whole expansion of the University of Manchester will grind to a halt, despite anything that the Government may say, and despite any funds that may be made available by the Grants Committee for academic buildings. At a time when we are spending £5 million on a computer, what the academic authorities worry about is: first, where are the students to live; and, secondly, how are they to afford to eat? There is something very wrong and misleading about a White Paper which is so unbalanced as to assume that halls of residence can be provided in the numbers that will be necessary, without providing the funds to do it. So much for one urgent problem which must be solved and which is nowhere mentioned in the White Paper.
The second problem to which I should like to refer is the sequel to the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan referred—the redeployment of academic staff. I see the problem from the point of view of a university institution which for about a hundred years has concerned itself with the education of men who are to go into industry—engineers, chemists, chemical engineers, textile engineers and people of that kind. At the moment, the state of trade in some of the primary industries is quite appalling. For example, 10 or 15 years ago the machine tool trade, which is a fundamental trade which makes the tools in the factories, was one of the most important in Manchester, as it had been for a hundred years or more. There were about 15,000 people in it—it had never been a big industry. To-day, there are 550, instead of 15,000. This is the most dramatic decline that I can remember in any major industry in Lancashire. In my University, we have what is in many ways the best—it is certainly

1239
the oldest—department of machine tool engineering in England, and before long, with the new equipment which we are planning for it, it will undoubtedly be one of the best, if not the very best, in the whole of Europe. But what are we to do with a department, however well-equipped, if there is no trade to which its graduates can go?
We have an enormous department of chemical engineering, and an enormous department of chemistry. Three years ago we sent twice as many Ph.Ds. into manufacturing industry in the chemical trades as any other university institution in England. Four years ago, I.C.I. recruited 560 graduates. Last year it recruited 70, and this year it proposes to recruit 80. This is like walking into a brick wall. This is not a minor change; this is quite catastrophic. Where are the graduates to go?
It has always been said—and very rightly—that a classic or a historian does not expect to become a professional classic or a professional historian when he leaves university. True enough! On the other hand, engineers have always expected to earn their living by the practice of their professional skills, and although I should very much welcome the introduction of engineers into ail branches of English society—in particular, into local government where they will be needed more and more—I still believe that if the recruitment of professionally qualified men by the industries which need them most stops, the situation is indeed serious. This situation is inevitably reflected by the failure of students to come to courses which will qualify them for jobs which do not exist to-day. For a decade or more we recruited about 120 freshmen as chemists, and about 120 as chemical engineers, every year. During the last year or two recruitment has dropped to less than half, and next year it may drop even further.
My University, which is dedicated—as it always has been—to the education of men to create the wealth upon which the community lives, is suffering as a direct result of this very fact. Students do not want to come to take courses the purpose of which they cannot see. This problem afflicts universities in other countries, too, and it is an acute and difficult problem because it takes a long time to educate a man. If he comes in now and is going
1240
to take a Ph.D. he will not be in industry until the 1980s. So we must hope that by then industry will have improved and will be ready to recruit more people again. We cannot allow departments concerned with these extremely important industries to die out. We must retain them. We must do so confidently in the hope that, sooner or later, more students will be forthcoming so that the industry of the 1980s will have a source of men who can help it.
Of course, it is the chemical trade—with the polymers, the artificial fibres and all the things that go with it—which has been partly responsible for nearly all the growth that has taken place in the national economy. For many years, that industry grew at nearly 30 per cent. compound interest, and was in large measure responsible for such overall growth as took place in the national economy. If it ceases to grow, aspirations for a 5 per cent. growth rate overall seem to me to be doomed to failure and futility.
My Lords, the problems that we have to-day in the universities connected with the professions that I have spoken of are determined entirely by the state of trade, by the confidence that industry has in its ability to use graduates, and by the confidence that young men have in their ability to get jobs after they have graduated. These are problems which afflict universities the world over, and they are the concern of Governments the world over. For example, no university in America knows what to do about, let us say, its aerospace departments. If the manufacture of aeroplanes is dramatically cut back and the cutback lasts for twenty years, evidently most of the aerospace departments in universities will have to close down or be dramatically curtailed. Some such changes are bound to occur as the economy changes its nature and the emphasis is shifted from one industry to another. This one accepts; but, at the same time, the universities have to retain a power to expand in those industries which have classically and traditionally maintained the State, and we hope will do so in the future. So, our problems are not those of expansion; they are the problems of universities intimately linked with industry and suffering from all the strains and all the frustrations that British industry is going through at the moment. All one can say is that we have managed

1241
as best we can to preserve our confidence in the future; and even as we change the nature of our courses, as we introduce new ones and allow old ones to decay, we still have to preserve a hope in the long-term viability of those great industries upon which we all depend.
So, my Lords, I view this White Paper with interest, but I feel that somehow the idea that a university is an integral part of society, that it helps industry to create the wealth upon which we live, is sadly missing from it. I would accept what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said a few moments ago: that the correlation between science education and engineering education and prosperity is very hard to establish. It was well said as long ago as 1903, when England was by far the most prosperous country in the world and Lancashire was the workshop of the world, that we had fewer universities in England than any other country in Europe except Turkey, and Lancashire was the most illiterate county in England. There was a time when I often thought that our Government believed that illiteracy was of itself enough to guarantee prosperity. Fortunately, that illusion has now been shattered. But it is extremely hard to persuade people of the importance of The interaction between industry and the universities; of the importance of the research work done in universities, and its effect on the manufacture of goods throughout the country; and of the relation between work done in an academic institution and the ultimate production of goods for sale.
We have to believe that somehow continuity can be maintained, and most particularly that the Government's proposals that post-graduate education should be cut back should be reconsidered: for, if they are not, the problem—the most difficult of all educational problems—of the conversion of a college graduate to an engineer will never be settled. We do our best in our post-graduate schools to convert college graduates into practising professional men, much as doctors learn their trade in a teaching hospital. This is a part of the post-graduate education which few people appreciate. It is sophisticated, it is complicated, and its overall importance cannot be exaggerated. I am therefore most concerned at the proposals for the curtailment of the expansion of postgraduate education, as I am by the almost
1242
total neglect of what one might best call the ancillary services upon which any expansion programme must depend.
5.35 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, may I at the outset add my own words of congratulation to the noble Earl on his maiden speech, for its practicality and for his obvious acquaintance with the facts of educational life, which are not always in strict accord with the theories that are sometimes explained. My Lords, although I would not go the whole way with every word of the White Paper, may I say that I welcome it very warmly for two reasons. The first is its breadth of view in that it covers a wide spectrum and emphasises the conviction which I imagine we all have, that education is something which begins in the home but which must be seen thereafter as a continuous process of renewal over the whole range of human experience—and that at a time when the world in which the children will be living when they are grown up will be different from that in which we are educating them.
The second reason why I welcome the White Paper is that it reinforces the challenge to establish our priorities for educational expansion over the next ten or fifteen years. Over the past ten years or more we have had a series of very important Commissions and Reports each dealing with only one aspect of education. The Crowther Report focused attention on the needs of those between 15 and 18 and gave a fresh stimulus to secondary education for all. Then we swung on to higher education, where the Report for which we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, opened up unprecedented ranges of opportunity in the field of education. Then we switched back again in the Newsom Report, with its disturbing analysis of the needs of children of average and less than average ability, and the suggestions of ways in which children could be given equal opportunity to acquire intelligence and develop their abilities. Then—and I do not know whether this was very far-sighted or purely accidental—we started again at the beginning in the Plowden Report, where I venture to think we ought to have begun, with the improvement of primary education. Now, at long last, it is essential that we should look at education as a whole against the background of

1243
what has been possible in the implementation of the various Reports which we have had to consider in the last ten years.
This White Paper, at least, has a wider scope than most of its predecessors and perhaps one might even say than the famous White Paper of 1943 in which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, gave a new direction to English education, but based it mainly on formal schooling. Looking at education as a whole, it is high time that we worked out what the priorities should be in a balanced programme of advance, to use a phrase of the White Paper, and took a long, hard look at the gaps in our existing provision, to some of which attention has already been called by noble Lords who have already spoken. The first gap is obviously, of course, in the early years: the period when a child is opening up as a person; when what he is learning is indistinguishable from what he has become, and the pattern of his future response to the world around him is being set. So we welcome the proposals for better provision for children in these nursery years, and with it the suggestion in paragraph 28 that in the early stages of the programme priority will be given to areas of disadvantage.
We welcome, too, the recognition of the valuable work done by existing play groups, which are already helping over a quarter of a million children under five years of age. It is vital that their development should continue and that the voluntary element which they represent should not be lost; nor that the parental cooperation which brought them into being should disappear because the local education authority was thought to be taking them over. That, of course, has happened in other spheres. What is said in paragraph 29 about the role of parents is very important, but it will not be easy to implement. It is all very well to talk about parents of children living in deprived areas helping in the nursery education of their children, but how many of those parents may not themselves be suffering deprivation of one form or another, and if they are to be involved, as they should be, in the fuller education of their children a great deal of effort and initiative and imagination as well as research will be called for. Much of it is uncharted territory, and to explore it will be more difficult than the White Paper
1244
seems to suggest. And to increase the number of qualified teachers of children under the age of five to the 25,000 suggested as being needed in ten years' time will be a formidable task, even with the full co-operation of the colleges of education.
My Lords, this development of nursery schools and the emphasis upon it as a part-time course is immensely important, but let us not be under any illusions about its difficulty. I suspect that we shall need twice as much enthusiasm for it five years from now to keep it going than we are showing now when it is something first appearing over the horizon. It is significant that in this White Paper the section dealing with schools is so short and is concerned largely with capital investment. What is said about the programme for replacing old and inadequate buildings is important, and it is welcome to the churches which have their share in education. Your Lordships perhaps hardly need to be reminded that the church aided schools, mainly those of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, constitute a very important part of the total provision. The Church of England alone has 2,700 aided schools with a total of nearly half a million children. We and the Roman Catholic Church have had plans made years ago for the replacement of our old schools—schools which are old and outdated because we were the pioneers before the State came in—so we have a backlog and we could not get on with it because we could not get into the building programme.
In normal circumstances we could have met both the replacements of our own old schools and the provision of the new buildings required for the new understanding and organisation of education. We could have done this without undue difficulty, but the rapid inflation of building costs has created an almost intolerable situation. We are grateful for the generous support of the State, which provides 80 per cent. of the capital costs, but in this inflationary situation even the 20 per cent. is going to be extremely difficult to find. May I quote one instance alone from one Anglican diocese? The site cost of a substituted school was first quoted as £60,000. When the time came to complete the purchase—and this was of the site alone—it had gone up to

1245
£240,000. That is happening in every diocese in that kind of scale. Even if costs were to be kept at their present figure and did not rise in the next few years the Church of England would have to provide at least £13 million capital for schools over and above the money we have set apart to do the job previously.
We value and we prize our partnership with the State in the dual system of education, but it should be said to your Lordships that that dual system and that partnership are at risk because of the growing difficulty of meeting the commitments which years ago some of us who were responsible were quite happy to sign for, saying that we were able and willing to take on the responsibility for replacement or rebuilding. We are still as willing as we ever were; we are not quite so able.
Before I leave the question of schools, may I welcome warmly the provision in paragraphs 41 to 43 for improvements in schools for handicapped children. In recent years the combination of skilled research and devoted teaching has shown that children with quite severe disabilities can be enabled to live happily and usefully beyond all previous expectations. May I echo a previous speaker who said that sometimes it is better to have a deprived child in a normal school than to segregate him in a special school. One cannot generalise on this matter, but I have very clearly in my mind an episode a few months ago when I was visiting a primary school where it is the policy to take a limited number of children with quite severe deprivations. They have come on in a way that surprised even those who tried the experiment; and to have been present, as I was, on that occasion when a boy of eight spoke for the first time in his life was one of those experiences which one does not easily forget and which emphasise our need to do everything we possibly can in whatever way is suitable for the development of the education of handicapped children. This I find in the White Paper rather a surprising gap.
Chapter 5 ends with some forecast of the number of teachers required to increase the staffing ratio. It is a very welcome development, although to that must be added reduction in the size of classes. Then it might be said it was logical to go on to examine the findings
1246
of the James Report on Teacher Education. But very little is said about the young men and the young women between 16 and 19 years of age. The majority of them will have left school. What opportunites for wider education will be open to them? One agrees with the Government's desire to see advances over a wide front so that all members of society may be able to learn where, when and what they want in a way that best suits them, but how that is to be achieved is not made clear on a cursory reading of the Report on adult education which was published this week.
Three years ago we debated in your Lordships' House the Report on Youth and Community Work in the 'seventies, and I had hoped to see some reflection of that Report and that debate in this White Paper; but if it is there, my reading was not sufficiently accurate to detect it. For those youth who stay on in full-time education how long can we go on with the jumbled sort of provision we have—some in schools, some in sixth form colleges, some in colleges of further education? Variety is desirable, but one has the uneasy feeling that the present situation is not governed by the desire for variety as a thing in itself but by what is opportune and practicable.
As previous noble Lords have said, a great deal of the White Paper is concerned with the future development of higher education, with particular emphasis on the changing function of the colleges of education. This is an appropriate time for change. In principle, the Church welcomed the main lines of the James Report, and within negotiations now in progress the voluntary bodies will aim at contributing all they can to the well being of the nation rather than just attempting to retain the colleges as they have existed in the past, though of course the smaller colleges—and some of them are voluntary colleges—will pose a great deal of anxiety. The Churches have a considerable share in teacher training and the voluntary bodies have made known to the Secretary of State their desire to be consulted jointly in any negotiations about the development and the organisation of the colleges in the future. They believe it is for the health of teacher education that there should be a diversity of courses and students in colleges which, by tradition, have been mono-vocational institutions.

1247
We welcome the statement in paragraph 161 that the Government share with us the understanding that nothing must be done which will obscure the special insights which the voluntary colleges have brought to the creation of educative communities.
Within this general agreement there are a number of issues on which the voluntary colleges—and, I think, all colleges of education—have their anxieties. Uncertainty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said, can be very bad for morale. I detect in some of the colleges with which I am concerned very real anxieties about their own future—even in the larger ones which would seem to be quite secure. I hope that a balance will be struck between too hasty decisions as to which colleges are going to be expanded and which executed and, on the other hand, a desire that the colleges should know what their future is. These are points which will have to be discussed in detail with the Department, but there is one point in particular which causes unease within the colleges.
Paragraph 154 suggests ways in which a college of education might join with a university. What is said there seems to be rather rigid. It seems to imply that the university is to take a college of education into its system; the college of education feels that it might then be swallowed up in that system and would welcome a little indication that there might be some change in the institutional life of the university as well as in that of the college of education. They want to see, in the words of paragraph 56, a
"wholehearted acceptance of the colleges of education into the family of higher education institutions".
What they do not wish is that this wholehearted acceptance should take the form of an embrace which would extinguish the other part.
On the question of size, to which reference has been made, there is unease. Larger units may be necessary if the range of courses is to be diversified but they must not be so large that the living sense of corporate identities which I believe is part of the educational process may be lost. A college of 1,000 could be satisfactory. I doubt if much over that is not running into danger. At any
1248
rate, that point seems to be accepted by the Department in their latest Circular of which I have seen only a summary. Some of the colleges wish to advocate as part of the planning, clusters of proximate colleges in a federal association to provide for the needs of the regions in which they are placed and in which there could be a balance between the voluntary and other colleges.
In all this we welcome the proposals for the diploma of higher education. We have had our views represented in the James Report, and welcome the declaration that the diploma must be a thoroughly reputable qualification for which grants will be mandatory. It must not be allowed to be a second-class qualification. But all these plans for the colleges of education will collapse if students are not available to take up the places no longer required for teacher training. There has been public criticism that the provisions for higher education in the White Paper are inadequate; that a 50 per cent. increase in university places and an 80 per cent. increase in polytechnics will not be enough to maintain the principle of the Robbins Report of a constant ratio between the number of places and the number of qualified aspirants for those places. That is obviously of vital importance and it must be maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has made reference to this question of numbers. He will know better than I, for instance, the Tenth Report of U.C.C.A. from which I may be allowed to quote an ominous passage:
"Since 1968 the annual increase in the rate of home application has been slowing down until in 1972 it not only stopped but the number of those applying declined slightly. Such preliminary information as is now available about the number of home candidates seeking entry in October 1973 suggests that no increase is to be expected over the number who applied for entry in October, 1972."
If this forecast is correct, there is the risk that the colleges of education in their new form may find themselves short of students.
We are told in the latest circular that there may well be between 40,000 and 50,000 places in the colleges of education available for those who are not intending to become teachers. What will happen if those 40,000 are not forthcoming in a college which has already

1249
begun to arrange its building and alter its courses to receive a new and different kind of intake? We cannot, of course, legislate for this in advance because we do not know whether they will come or not. We do not know whether they will switch from one career which they might have considered, or whether they may change over half-way through. But it seems to me vitally important that the utmost flexibility should be used in planning the future of the colleges, from within the colleges and in their relation W other colleges; and too rapid decisions (the mention of November this year, which has been made once or twice fills me with some apprehension) may in fact cause us to lose valuable communities, which we might need later on, because there does not appear to be an immediate demand for them.
My Lords, I look at the little red object on the wall and I see that I have spoken at greater length than I intended. I trust your Lordships will pardon my prolixity, for this is an important subject, and it may be the last occasion on which I address your Lordships on a major educational issue. I would add only one more point. Over the past 15 years we have seen a quite remarkable growing together of the four partners in education; the Department itself, the local authorities, the teachers, and the voluntary bodies. The White Paper cannot be more than a blueprint. Indeed, if it attempted to cover the whole field as adequately as we would have wished we should probably have had it in about three volumes. Thank goodness! we have not, because it means that the details are now to be worked out between these four partners, and it is in their growing and developing understanding that I think I see one of the great hopes for the future breadth of education in this country to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred and which is the desire of us all.
6.0 p.m.
LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, first of all I should like to pay a tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I had the honour of sitting next to his grandfather on this Bench on many occasions. Indeed, so much deference have I for his memory that I never sit right at the end of the Bench myself—I feel that
1250
he is still there with us. It is very moving to hear his grandson making so appropriate a speech to us on this occasion, appropriate not only by its bervity but by its wit, and its appropriateness to his own loal authority. I also feel rather moved by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. When I was engaged in perhaps the most difficult part of the framing of the Education Act 1944, which was the religious settlement, so-called, which certainly occupied the greater part of my time, while William Temple was my great help the right reverend Prelate himself, before he came to London, was a great help in dealing with the schools. It is remarkable how the religious bodies, especially the Church of England and the Roman Catholics have dealt with the secondary problems which have arisen since that date.
I generally approve of the White Paper. I think it is much better than having a new Bill. In fact, a new Bill is quite unnecessary and it is obvious from the scope of this White Paper that almost anything can be done under it. If one looks at it and the really rather remarkable financial figures at the end of it, one sees it is quite a major advance in the educational development of the country. I should like to congratulate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and the noble Lord, on its production.
I do not want to detain your Lordships for an undue period, but I was irritated by a phrase on page 4 of the White Paper which said there was a new policy for the education of children under five. As this policy was totally enacted with duties and powers imposed upon the local education authorities in 1944, I did not quite understand the right reverend Prelate's reference to the matters appearing on the horizon for the first time. This reform has been underneath the horizon for thirty years. No Government, not even the Labour Government who followed on my departure from office, or any other Government of any colour, have attempted to put these proposals into force. I have here not only the Act itself but also the White Paper covering the Act; and the Memorandum covering the Act says:
"The duty of local education authorities to maintain and keep efficient all public elementary schools et cetera in their areas …".

1251
It goes on to say:
"This duty will cover nursery schools the provision of which is at present only a power and special schools for children suffering disability of mind or body."
And if we were to trouble to look at Sections 8 and 9 of the Act it would be seen that the words used in the White Paper, that the 1944 Act simply "had regard" to this matter, are quite untrue because definite responsibilities were placed on the local education authorities in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, which I need not trouble to read to your Lordships.
I am only too thankful that the Secretary of State has decided at last, after thirty years delay, to give some precedence to this subject. No new powers are needed; the powers are all in the Act. All that has to be done now is to carry them out. The noble Lord was generous enough to quote my speech during the Second Reading debate in another place thirty years ago. I have nothing to add to those words. The provision of nursery education for young children is vital, not only for the mothers but also for the children, the adults who work in the schools and the teachers, and, indirectly, for industry itself. I think the expenditure which is now to be put into this subject is well worth while from every single point of view.
I approve the White Paper in its reference to primary education. I think that after the Plowden Report it was inevitable that money should be poured into primary education, and it has been done recently and will be done in the immediate future. I welcome the investment in secondary education. I notice that there is no mention of comprehensives in the White Paper, but I trust that the development of the comprehensive school is going to go on all over the country.
I listened, as usual, with interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Annan. He is quite right that in the initial stages the developments in the Act of 1944 were governed by the Spens Report and also, I would remind him, by the Norwood Report. I did at least have the foresight to put in my White Paper of 1943, which is exactly thirty years ago, that these three types could be combined under one roof; and I have been one of the people who since that development has taken place in recent years have welcomed it because I
1252
did not think the other system could continue. There is obviously clearly much more opportunity of education in the new system provided that the comprehensive school has a proper sixth form and is not a bodged up building site; provided it is a proper school, as I have seen, especially in the London area, where I have been taken round by the Inner London Education Authority. They can be some of the best schools in the country, and I am glad to say that we are getting some pupils from them in my own college already.
The White Paper of 1943 foresaw three types of education under one roof. I am quite happy to feel that the fact that this is not mentioned in the White Paper does not mean that there is no interest in it in Government circles. I am not so happy about the parts on page 29 of the White Paper entitled After School and Beyond, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London did not seem any more satisfied than I am. There is so little about the period immediately after leaving school and that is what is worrying me. Here I must quote again from the Memorandum covering the Education Bill on page 9 of the Memorandum, paragraphs 42 and 43. This was written before 1944 and it deals with further education as follows:
"The present power of the local education authority to aid the supply of higher education is converted into a duty to provide adequate facilities for technical, commercial and art education"—
that is an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—
"and general adult education",
to which reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. All these things were foreseen and legislated for at that date. Then we went on with these rather pathetic words which I do not think will give any consolation to the right reverend Prelate:
"Authorities will also be required to make provision in young people's colleges for the part-time education in working hours of young persons up to the age of 18."
The principles of this proposal form the main elevation of Mr. Fisher's Act of 1918. They are embodied in Sections 75 to 79 of the 1921 Act which have never been effectively implemented. The opportunity has been taken here in this Bill to

1253
amend and clarify requirements in certain respects. The fact is that no Government since that day have done anything whatsoever to implement the Act of H. A. L. Fisher, or my own Act of 1944.
Following the right reverend Prelate enables me to quote from the Bible. He will remember the immortal words from Ecclesiasticus: "Let us now praise famous men." I am not thinking of the first part of this quotation when I think of H. A. L. Fisher, who, after all, was not a bad fellow—he was Warden of New College and wrote one of the best histories of modern Europe, and was a considerable Statesman who was admired by Lloyd George and others. When I think of him and myself in relation to further education I think of the later part of that passage which runs as follows:
"And some there be who have no memorial and are become as though they have never been born."
I was rather interested when reading my Apochrypha—which I have some difficulty in finding—to read that the next stanza after this immortal poem runs as follows:
"Enoch pleased the Lord and was translated."
I want to ask my right honourable and honourable friends on the Front Bench in another place whether they would rather that assage was construed to mean that the Greek works of the right honourable gentleman were translated, or that he was translated to Heaven or that he was translated to the Front Bench here. I will leave them to work this out, only reflecting that the works of H. A. L. Fisher and myself have, alas!, been forgotten. But it would help if the noble Lord who is to reply can tell us how much there is for after-school in this particular period. I have read the book which is referred to in the White Paper, Inside the Colleges of Further Education, and I am aware of the immense expansion of further education since what I may call my days, but I should like to ask the Minister to what extent the objectives of the 1921 and 1944 Acts have been carried out about the education of teenagers. How far do they appear in the colleges of education? I do not wish to make any further criticism. But the fact is that the teenager problem has not yet
1254
been solved, and I would go so far as to say that if there is to be further legislation I should rather seek it in the realm of the teenage, middle-school and then after-school up to the 18-year-old period than I would in any other period. So, if the noble Lord has anything to say on that subject I shall be delighted to hear it.
The next part of the White Paper deals with teacher training. I am tempted to say, very quietly and without any ostentation, that if only they would leave us alone in teacher training, especially in the Faculty of Education in Cambridge, we should be perfectly happy. We have established very close relations with some twenty colleges of education. We are on such good terms now with the Institute of Education who look after the colleges of education that we are planning a building site to take the whole of the Department of Education and the Institute of Education in together, and with one library to serve both, thereby tying ourselves closely to the colleges of education. We were therefore somewhat horrified to read the James Report. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not present to-clay, and perhaps I had better not say any more about it. All I will say about it is this: that the discussion following upon the James Report resulted in amendments which brought out the best in the Report and has made this White Paper a memorable document. I think that if we had left things entirely as they were in the James Report we might have got into greater trouble. The White Paper modifications on the James Report will improve the situation.
I gather there is to be a new pattern of awards to students of the colleges. It is hoped that many of these will take the four-year course. Most universities are presently discussing the possibility of validating their assets and awards, and Nottingham has avowed its intention to do so. The Council for National Academic Awards has stated its intention to validate such awards for students in colleges of education and in polytechnics. What makes me sorry—and here I agree with the noble Baroness—is that it now appears likely that the great majority of colleges of education will be assimilated into the non-university sector. I am one of the heretics who followed the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in his Report, when I was a member of the Government.

1255
I believed in bringing colleges of education closer to the universities and not so much to the sector outside. I remain unrepentant in that, but it appears from this White Paper to be too late. The number of teachers in the colleges is to be decreased by about 40 per cent. by 1981. This is indeed a great change for the colleges, and I sympathise with the noble Earl and various others who have spoken on this subject, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, in their feeling that the outlook for the colleges and especially the small ones, is indeed rather grim. I hope—and I must ask the Minister whether he can give an answer on this point—that proper arrangements will be made for their staff and for their future.
My Lords, I did not want to speak for more than 15 minutes, and I see that number on the light, so I simply conclude by saying this. I think this White Paper forms a considerable advance in education over the whole plane. On pages 35 and 36 the immense number of students in institutes of higher education is advertised. A few years ago only about 8 per cent. of the 18 year-old group were going to be in such higher colleges. The Minister has already announced that there is not only going to be an advance of 15 per cent., but that in 1981 there will be an advance of 22 per cent. I would ask the noble Lord how those figures compare with those in the United States of America, where I gather the figure is something like 28 or 29 per cent., and with the Soviet Union, whose figures I am afraid are inexact because they bring in every single technical college that they have. If we could get exact figures of comparison of our own ratio with those of the United States and the Soviet Union, it would be extremely interesting. I must congratulate the Government that they envisage a figure of 22 per cent. by 1981, which the Minister announced in his speech.
The last thing I have to say is this. When your Lordships read the figures at the end of this document you see what an immense share of the national cake education is taking and is about to take. I do not think we are wasting our time in having a debate on education in the Upper House on this occasion, because it is of great importance not only to the national
1256
income but also to the national goodwill and good work. I entirely agree with Lord Annan's statements about the need for opportunity and quality of education. I hope that this debate will do nothing to put education back, but by this rather modest document, which I suggest should be bound in vellum to make it look more important, we may have made a great stride forward.
6.16 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, following such a galaxy of distinguished experts in this field, I wish to make only a few general comments on this White Paper. Among that galaxy, the giant of them is of course the noble Lord, Lord Butler, to whom we owe so much in this field. But first I must congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, on his maiden speech. I hope he will speak often in this Chamber, because his speech was not only excellent but was also full of expertise. I promise not to nag the Government because they cannot hand us the moon—that is, give us everything we want at this moment—in the sphere of education. We have only to think of the economics and politics to-day. The White Paper states flatly that it is concerned only with scale, organisation and cost, and not with educational content, but I cannot see how it can be discussed without referring to this omission.
We have come a long way from the narrow definition of "education" as a framework for schooling and instruction, and there is a great deal of new thinking on the subject. Here I agree with the splendid speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, from the Liberal Benches. We spend vast sums of money on education, though it is never enough to expand all sections from the university to the nursery at the same time. The Secretary of State, Mrs. Thatcher, has in this document shuffled her financial cards and made some welcome recommendations, particularly in increased pre-school education, as everyone has said, and in the education of the handicapped. There is now a universal recognition of the importance of pre-school education, thanks to the Plow-den Report: and that Report is now going to pay real dividends. It was a beacon, because it called for priority for areas of deprivation; and more resources for these areas, urban and rural, will help to expand all kinds of facilities for the

1257
under-fives, including more classes in primary schools, more day nurseries and help for the play groups movement.
Here local authorities can take the initiative and involve parents and qualified teachers as well. It is difficult for me to tell whether the increase in total current expenditure on the under-fives from the present £42 million to £65 million is generous or not, but the £50 million a year to be spent on replacement of unsatisfactory buildings in primary schools is greatly to be welcomed, though it shows up the inadequacy of only £10 million a year on secondary school building. I am glad the Government have not swallowed all the recommendations of the James Report. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden; though the Report is very good generally, I do not like all of it. It received a fairly hostile reception from the teachers' unions, and judging from the complaints about lack of consultation that come from them, accompanied by angry noises, it is unfortunate that the Secretary of State, Mrs. Thatcher, continues to maintain such an authoritarian posture.
As everyone has said, there has been a vast expansion in our education system over the past ten or 15 years, and, following on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, one sees it is clearly more than 15 years. In the present state of our economy any allocation of resources raises important questions of priority as to whether to expand nursery education at the expense of secondary or university education. So I come to my main criticism of this White Paper, which is not so much for what it contains but for what it leaves out. I refer to the glaring omission of any reference to the expansion of comprehensive education. It is not mentioned anywhere in this document. I make no apology for including this great part of the education system in this debate, despite its exclusion from the document, Education: a Framework for Expansion. I do not raise it just in order to resume the argument with the Secretary of State, because she is the great apostle of selectivity in education and I view selection as the greatest restrictive practice in the great educational industry.
To explain, I will return for a moment to the comment in the White Paper on
1258
the James Report, on page 16, paragraph 57. This paragraph has been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the Government have accepted the six objectives as their goal. I will touch on one or two of them: to enhance intellectual abilities to the highest standard of which each child is capable; and to develop practical and human skills to make the maximum contribution to health, wealth and harmony of a democratic society. No one can disagree with such bland sentiments. But, except for the Government's welcome expansion in pre-school education and the particular emphasis on the areas of deprivation, none of the other high-sounding objectives in this fanfare can be achieved without the expansion of a truly comprehensive education and one which is geared towards bringing the slow learners and the less gifted academically to the highest standard of which each is capable, and making it higher still.
The White Paper takes no account of present-day thinking about education on priorities in secondary education, or of the new thinking about new methods and the revaluation of examinations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred: "A"-levels, "O"-levels, university entrances, the lot. We have some terrible social problems in secondary education: truancy, disorder and sometimes even violence. All these are likely to come to the boil with the raising of the school-leaving age. The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in a trenchant article last weekend, said that science and technology do not dictate social values. That is true; but education has an obligation and an opportunity to do just that, because it dispenses opportunities, and so the next step is to dispense them fairly. Much has been written lately by top educationists concerned with truancy and delinquency in some secondary schools. They have been urging us to get our priorities right, to give more resources to those areas of deprivation, and generally start from a broader definition of education than the one that we have inherited in a way from the grammar school tradition. In a society where young people are exposed to the temptations of advertising, if they are branded as failures from the moment they start as a failed 11-plus, or if they cannot keep up with the academic teaching which has been inherited in many secondary modern schools from the grammar school

1259
tradition, this reinforces their sense of failure. I believe this is a factor in the prevalence of delinquency because they feel that society is hostile to them.
So expansion by itself is not enough; it has to go hand-in-hand with reform in teaching methods, more flexible curricula, a shake-up for the future. I have reservations about what my friend the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said about an élite; there are great social dangers about a concentration of élitists. But that subject would need another debate. Finally, the White Paper has some good recommendations in it so far as it goes, but it does not go deep enough.
6.27 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for opening this debate with a masterly summary of the main intentions of the White Paper. We should also be grateful to the Secretary of State for issuing it. If I am not mistaken, this is the first occasion on which there has been an opportunity of looking at what is expected of the structure of education as a whole. Although doubtless there are many omissions of detail, although doubtless there are many matters of allocation of limited resources on which differences of opinion are likely to arise, it is very good that we should have this opportunity of looking at the contemplated structure as a concise picture. I make no complaint that it is not longer; on the contrary, I could have wished from time to time, having this purpose in mind at any rate, that it had been more concise.
This evening I do not wish to enter into the lists regarding allocation of resources which are decreed to the educational system, nor do I wish to utter any general complaint regarding the amount which is spent on education and other objects of Government expenditure. I should like to address myself to the question implicit in much of what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said, and perhaps in what the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, was saying; namely, the question of content, and the question whether in the existing system, or the system which is contemplated in the White Paper, we are getting the maximum value for money. By "value for money" I do not mean simply greater
1260
potential increase in Gross National Product. I do not want to deprecate increases in Gross National Product—we need all we can get in these inflationary days—but from my point of view, at any rate, the aim of education is not merely the increase of Gross National Product but the good life in general, the enlargement of the spiritual horizon of citizens, the enlargement of their understanding, their tolerance and their capacity for sympathy and for living together.
From that point of view, I cannot conceal some dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs. I do not in the least wish to go back on the noble principles of 1944 and the acceptance of all that has followed the Act—and we must surely always honour the author of it; indeed, we are very glad to see him here this afternoon. I should be very sorry indeed if anything I say henceforth were taken as implying regret for any part that I played in recommending the provision of opportunity for all who have the ability and willingness to benefit from higher education. The question I wish to raise is not one of numbers but of what is provided for numbers. Is the training provided in schools and in higher education such as to produce the results we have expected? How do we compare in this respect with educational systems abroad? Is what we are doing now likely to fulfil the hopes which we have all entertained in past years?
I begin in this connection with the schools. Here I should like to express continuing deep disquiet at the developments of the last few decades, particularly in boys' grammar schools, in so far as their sights are set on preparation for higher education. Years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Snow, warned us that we were in the process of evolving two cultures, each with a diminishing capacity to understand the other. These were the humanistic and the scientific. The noble Lord, Lord Snow, did not, as I understand him, recommend one culture as superior to the other: he simply lamented the fact that those who grew up in the one were less able to understand those who grew up in the other. He lamented the fact that there were growing up groups of persons with more or less expert knowledge of the world of natural science who had only a peripheral contact with the world of humanities;

1261
and the fact that in the world of humanities there were people growing up with equally imperfect contact with the marvellous achievements of science since the 17th century. Doubtless there may have been some simplification—it is very difficult to lecture on these subjects for an hour, let alone in a speech which should not last more than 15 or 20 minutes—but I ask you, my Lords, can anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear deny the main contention? And if that is true I ask: is it not a lamentable thing, and is it not truly deplorable, that our system should be churning out a division of this sort?—when perhaps one of the main needs of our society is that science should be informed by humanity and that the humanistic culture which we have inherited from the past should he aware of the new potentialities and the new views of the universe which scientific method and discovery have made possible.
The trouble here begins in the schools, and particularly in the boys' schools. Who of us, who is a parent or a grandparent, has not watched children, often at the tender age of 14 or even earlier, having to begin to choose whether later on to take a group of "A" levels heavily weighted on one side or the other? The choice once taken and the "O" levels business got over in a more or less perfunctory way, henceforward their main concentration must be focused on one or other of the groups. Thus the budding natural scientist leaves languages and history, and the budding humanist (including, I am sorry to say, very often the budding economist) leaves maths. and natural science, save for special talks in so-called "free time", which are notoriously deprived of the proper discipline and system of the other subjects.
I would not wish to overplay my hand. I do not deny that nowadays there is disquiet about these practices or that some attempts are being made to remedy them. But these practices are very widespread indeed, and the trouble is that for many academics they are accounted as righteousness. The so-called sixth form concentration (which, so far as I know, has no counterpart in any other civilised country) is counted a great virtue of our system; and often where it has not developed so far, as in some comprehensive schools, great efforts are made to
1262
copy it. I know there is much idealism in this—there is often much idealism behind the practices which turn out to have bad results—but I cannot regard it as anything but nationally dangerous to have a system which, unlike those anywhere else, involves the absence of systematic study of languages or history or a lack of contact with mathematics or science after the early age of 15 or 16. You certainly will not find such an absence of contact in the countries of Western Europe or in the United States. Some of the fault lies definitely with the schools and with the ideology which underlies this particular habit; but speaking realistically, most of the fault lies with the universities. Talk to an open-minded schoolmaster and ask him if he is content in this way to be out of step with the rest of the civilised world, and his reply will be—will it not?—that he has a responsibility to his pupils to prepare them for the universities and to see they get places. In the main, I would say it is the requirements of the universities which are mainly responsible for excessive specialisation in the schools.
Again, I do not wish to overstate the case. I know that in recent years some universities have begun to be less exacting in their requirements regarding "A" levels as preparation for special degrees. I know that some teachers are now alarmed at the present state of affairs, but I must say that I have yet to learn that many universities are prepared to lower their general requirements so as to provide more scope for boys and girls who do not concentrate excessively at the sixth form stage. Therefore, in my judgment it is the universities—and I must specify the universities South of the Border—against which I would bring my main indictment. It is the universities which are mainly responsible for these unfortunate developments in the schools, and it is the organisation of teaching and standards in the universities which are most in need of drastic revision. It is the continued prevalence of extreme honours specialisation in the English universities, as distinct from those North of the Border, which is at the root of what I venture to call the sickness in our middle-range and higher education.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to intervene for one moment? I perfectly follow his

1263
indictment of the universities on this point and I do not want in any way to try to exculpate them entirely; but I would point out that in the many conferences with schoolmasters that I have attended it has been the sixth form masters who have begged the universities to protect their notion of what sixth form work should be, namely, sixth form work in depth. I think there are many ways in which this can be done and there are many variations on the present situation, but I would not wish it to be thought that it was simply and solely universities that were responsible for the present situation.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me if I remind him that at an earlier stage I said that some of the fault lay in the mistaken ideology underlying some sixth form masters. But despite the tremendous respect in which I hold everything uttered by my noble friend I still maintain that the main fault lies with the universities. I do not wish to overstate the case. I think it is true that in recent years in some universities there have been many experiments in joint degrees. It is also true, of course, that the degree of specialisation can sometimes be exaggerated by reason of misapprehension of terminology. An economics degree, for instance, may or may not involve much more spread than appears on the surface.
But let us face it, on the whole these new experiments are not a very great success; on the whole, they do not command the enthusiasm of the professors, and it is the professors and their assistants who have the last word in this respect. On the whole, the prestige of having a flourishing honours department is for many of these people, so to speak, an addition to their pecuniary emoluments—and do not let us make any mistakes, this is realised by the student: unless very special arrangements are made for the students who take general or joint degrees they feel (and they feel quite rightly) that they will not be looked after so well if they take a broad based degree as they will if they take a degree in depth.
These are tendencies which can only be reversed by much more drive and determination than has been shown so far by many senior teachers in many universities. I think this state of affairs is
1264
peculiarly unfortunate for two quite different reasons: first, if there is to be specialisation in first degrees—and no sensible person would deny the need for some specialization—then it is all the more necessary that those who begin to specialise in the universities should have a broad background of school education behind them. The less the specialisation in the schools, the more risk can be taken with specialisation later on. The more specialisation we have in sixth forms the greater the danger of the two cultures—of our system of higher education—producing races of people such as the late Wyndham Lewis used to call "split men and women", human beings whose personalities are starved because they lack the dimension of either scientific or humanistic cultures.
Secondly, I think the intensity of specialisation at the first degree stage, prevalent in many quarters, is a bad thing in itself, at any rate for a substantial number of students. I am not prepared to deny that our honours system South of the Border has produced some splendid specimens, especially quite splendid dons or quite splendid people capable of surviving the rigours of the examination for the administrative grade of the Civil Service; though I should not be prepared to admit that the same results are not capable of being produced in saner systems, North of the Border, for instance, or in Canada. But we have to bear this in mind—and here I join forces spiritually with the noble Lord, Lord Annan—that the important work of the world is not only done by firsts; it is done by the seconds and even the thirds, and I do not believe that at the first degree, the degree of blinkered concentration involved by an English honours system is necessarily the best for them. Some may benefit, and the benefit varies from subject to subject; but some at least would be better served by a more all-round system which fosters not only expertise in a narrow field but versatility and acquaintance with a wider field.
If I take my own subject, for instance, I would far rather that the first degree student had a good grounding in history and politics, with some capacity to translate at least two modern languages, than that at that stage he should be up to all the tricks and acrobatics appropriate to high finish in the graduate school. It is

1265
no accident that elsewhere in the English speaking world it is not the extreme honours specialisation of most universities South of the Border which has been taken as the model, but rather the Scottish system with its broad base and its fine aim of training the whole man or the whole woman.
I would not wish to leave your Lordships with the impression that I deny the importance in our educational system of high specialisation. Of course it is important; of course it is indispensable in the present state of the world. We cannot have high experts, we cannot advance the frontiers of knowledge, without high specialisation. What I contend is not that high specialisation is unnecessary anyway, but that its proper place, here as in other parts of the English speaking world, is much less at the first degree stage and much more in the graduate school. It is in the great graduate schools elsewhere that are trained the experts which we in this country need if we are to hold our own in the competition of free society, and it is in the graduate school that the desire of the professors to train the high experts can be released and satisfied without damage to students who are not going to be experts in that sense.
Hence I hope, in conclusion, that nothing I have said will be held to prejudice the case (which is a very strong one) for the proper fostering of graduate studies. I admit the desirability which may conceivably be in the minds of the D.S. at the moment, of admission standards here which prevent the opportunity of graduate studies being used simply to postpone coming to terms with real life. These things are not often said, but we all know that to some extent what I refer to happens. I admit, too, an important matter—the importance of avoiding duplication of facilities for specialisation where expensive equipment or expensive libraries are concerned. I have spent most of my life as an academic, fostering graduate studies, and I should be very sorry indeed to see them neglected or allowed to fall further behind the best in the Western world than they are in many universities at present.
My remarks to-day have not been directed against specialisation as such, but against specialisation at a premature stage, to an unnatural bifurcation of
1266
study and to the absence of sufficient scope for the continuation of broader studies at the first degree stage. Noble Lords from time to time have referred to the principle enunciated by the Committee with which I had the honour to be associated. I do not want to go back on a single word that was said in this connection in that Report, as regards the desirability of expansion. But it is necessary also to emphasise that that Report said—and I am quoting from paragraph 7 of the summary, page 269:
"We should not recommend so large an expansion of the universities as we do unless we were confident that it would be accompanied by a big increase in the number of students taking broader first degree courses."
I doubt very much whether all the professors and vice-chancellors South of the Border have yet paid nearly enough attention to that aspect of those recommendations.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him one question? I strongly agree with what he says, but is it not dependent entirely on an increase in the length of university courses to the length which is normal on the Continent and in America, namely, four years as a minimum, and perhaps five?
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question because it gives me the pretext for doing what I would have wished to do had I had more time at my disposal, and that is, expressing some hope of the conversion of the two-year diploma in higher education into a pass degree which can serve the purposes of those who do not wish to go on to higher studies and which, in all sorts of ways, might prove the basis for a tidying up of the present difficulties in the universities South of the Border.
6.52 p.m.
LORD BLAKE: My Lords, I should first like to pay my meal of tribute to the maiden speech by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. It was an excellent speech and I hope that he will frequently address us again. I should like also to express my admiration for the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Although I did not necessarily agree with everything he said, he certainly gave us cause for thought. I was particularly interested in what he and the noble Lord,

1267
Lord Bowden, said about the question of the redundancy and retraining of dons. I hope that the two noble Lords are expressing those sentiments with the same vigour as they have expressed them to your Lordships' House, to their respective Senates, because all I can say is that if I were to express those sentiments in the congregation at Oxford, I should be very lucky to get out unscathed. But it may be different with them.
I should like to begin by expressing in general a warm support for the main points in the White Paper. I have one or two minor criticisms, in particular over the university aspect, but from the beginning I must make clear my conviction that my right honourable friend's proposals are on the right lines. It is right to aim at a great expansion in education of the under-fives; it is right to make a major effort to replace the bad old buildings which still clog so many of our primary and secondary schools, and particularly primary schools; it is right to provide for a large and systematic expansion of in-service training—to use the words of the White Paper; and not least I would have thought that my right honourable friend had done fairly well in the amount of money she had screwed out of the Treasury.
The lion's share of expansion in the last decade went to higher education (or tertiary education as it is sometimes called) and it went mainly to the universities. I believe that my right honourable friend is quite right, given the inevitable limitation of governmental resources in expenditure, to reduce this rate of expansion in favour of the other claims to which I have just referred. After all, what it means is simply a reduction in the rate of expansion. That is not, as one might think from the utterances of some of my more excitable colleagues in the academic profession, an actual cutback on existing figures.
The same sense of proportion is needed when one moves from higher education as a whole to the university sector. Let me take one rather criticised feature, namely, the percentage of post-graduate students which it is proposed will fall in the next five years from 19 per cent. of the total university population as it now
1268
is, to 17 per cent. of the figure in 1976. But those who regard that as a blow against the universities in their capacity to advance the frontiers of knowledge, should have some sense of proportion. In fact it means, as the White Paper spells out, an increase of 7,000 over the existing figure of 45,000, a percentage increase of something like 15½ per cent., compared with the number in 1971. That is a slow down compared with the previous five years, but it can hardly be argued to be a catastrophic one.
The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, referred to one aspect of post-graduate education with which every don is familiar—at least, every don whose eyes are not fixed entirely on the stars. A considerable amount of expenditure on postgraduate work is wasted. There are too many young men and women who, having obtained what is defined as a good degree, go into post-graduate work less from a keen interest in research or an ardent desire to study, than from an inability and reluctance to make up their minds. Everybody who has contact with the actual realities knows that that is the case. I fully appreciate that comparison with the undergraduate stage can be misleading, but it would be interesting to know what proportion of drop-outs there are in that sense of the word in the postgraduate world. I wonder whether my noble friend when he comes to reply—and I have given him notice of this question—is able to give any statistics as to what proportion of post-graduates for one reason or another drop out? In respect of the undergraduate world, the record in the English and the Scottish universities is very good. But I do not know what figures there are for postgraduates.
What of the actual proposals regarding higher education? I should like to welcome one decision which is implicit in the White Paper though not specifically spelled out. I welcome it not only on its merits but as an example of nonpartisan continuity of policy. The binary system, as it is often called, propounded by one of my right honourable friend's predecessors, Mr. Anthony Crosland, has been preserved. My right honourable friend has rejected any approach towards one of the two opposite poles in the great debate on tertiary education: what in a very able address which I recently heard made by the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford,

1269
Sir Alan Bullock, at a conference, he called the "comprehensivisation" of higher education, that is to say the merging of universities, polytechnics, further education colleges, colleges of education, into general purveyors of higher education, under one umbrella with a common system of entry, staff structure, finance, et cetera. That would be the end of the university system as we know it, and I was in full agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said on that point. The opposite pole, of course, is the concept of universities as a very selective élite obtaining the principal share of the higher educational funds because they have, or believe they have, a unique capacity not only to advance the frontiers of knowledge but to train the people who will occupy the leading places in industry, politics and the professions. And it is only thus that the nation will secure the leaders that it needs if it is to flourish in a competitive world.
As one would expect, the White Paper steers between those two extremes in the best British tradition. It clearly regards the universities as having a special role to play, and there is no question of altering that. On the other hand, the plan is to reach the target of 750,000 students in 1981, and the lion's share of that expansion is to be borne by expanding polytechnics, though, of course, the universities are expanding substantially, too. The result will be that a very large share of the available funds for higher education will go into the public sector, as it is sometimes called, of higher education, rather than into the universities.
I am strongly in favour of diversity in higher education and of there being a number of different options. I thought this point was very well spelled out in Chapter 12 of the White Paper, and I welcome it. I should, however, be glad if my noble friend, when he comes to reply, could spell out a little more fully the reasons why the Government think it right to give the polytechnics quite such a large share. It really raises the question of their general role in higher education. In some ways they are not the most obvious place for major expansion on this scale compared with the universities. The White Paper anticipates the switch to some extent from science and technology to the humanities. Is there not a danger that the polytechnics may find it
1270
difficult to fill places in the subjects for which they are designed, and yet may have a glut of entrants for subjects to which they are not geared? There is just the danger that in those latter fields they may become the equivalent of second-rate universities, rather than leaders in the particular courses of study for which they were primarily intended.
It has been suggested that a motive behind this change of emphasis is the Government's desire to get higher education on the cheap. I do not believe this myself, but I think this doubt does lead one on to an important matter. As my noble friend said in his opening remarks, the cost of a unit of output in the university sector—that is to say, a student—is intended to go down over the next five years, albeit slowly; I think he gave a figure of 2 per cent. Even if one makes allowance for certain economies of scale which should be obtainable because of the build up of new universities to a more viable economic position, even if one makes allowance, too, for a higher staff-student ratio, this is nevertheless quite a lot to expect.
After all, a great many things are all too likely to go up in real costs. In many university activities, increasing sophistication of teaching methods, research, equipment, especially scientific research, research in social sciences, the cost of books—all things of that kind are likely to go up in real terms. This is recognised as far as teaching in schools is concerned; it is referred to in paragraph 45 of the White Paper. We assume—one hopes one is right—that the national income in real terms will go up over the next few years and one hopes that this will look after such increases.
I wonder what other unit of output from the social services, in the widest sense of those words, is expected to go down in real cost during this period. I have actually given my noble friend notice of this, possibly unanswerable, question. I have also given him notice of another one which may, I fear, deserve the same adjective. What is the cost per student in the polytechnics now, and what is the predicted cost over the course of the next few years—I appreciate that they are not financed on a quinquennial basis—and how does this compare with the university cost per student? It would be extremely interesting if we could have

1271
those figures, it they are obtainable. They are really rather vital figures from the point of view of planning future educational policy.
There is one last point I want to make about polytechnics. The switch of numbers to them may, if the existing state of affairs goes on, have an adverse effect in terms of drop-out rates. According to the statistics of education published by the Ministry, Volume 5, 1971, the dropouts of university students, which is the failures in examinations added to those who go for one or other reason, is of the order of 14·7 per cent. for the universities as a whole. But in the polytechnics and the further education colleges it is rather over 34 per cent., which is twice as high. I think there are implications which are slightly perturbing in that fact.
I hope no one will think I am trying in any way to crab the public sector. It has a most important part to play in education and I fully appreciate it. It is rather that I am a little anxious about the Government's attitude to the universities. The emphasis on economies of scale, on higher staff-student ratio and on reduction of residence, particularly the latter, is somewhat disturbing. It suggests, if I may put it thus, a slight measure of imperceptiveness as to what universities are about. They are not just machines for producing graduates, and I am sure my right honourable and my noble friend are fully aware of that. They exist also to advance the frontiers of knowledge. Every don who is worth his salt has a double part to play—a teacher and a researcher. And research and economies of scale do not go well together.
What about residence? Of course, this is an obvious economy, but the English universities have always had as a distinguishing feature the importance they attach to their extra-curricula life. It used to be a truism that one learned as much outside the study, lecture room, library, as inside them. I wonder how true this will be of a commuter university. I am sure of one thing in this respect: that those who come from the worst homes are going to be worst off under such a dispensation. I think there is a slight danger that the cumulative effect of my right honourable friend's proposals may be rather more harmful to the
1272
ethos and character of the universities, especially the newer and less well-established ones, than one might at first sight think. These are relatively minor matters, and my apprehensions may prove to be ill-founded.
I would end as I began, by expressing warm support for the main provisions of the White Paper and for the shift in emphasis it has given to educational expansion. I am confident that it is on the right lines. In particular, I believe that it will, if implemented, improve the quality of school teachers themselves. In the end, this is the most important factor in improving the quality of education. I ought perhaps to declare an interest, for my father was a schoolmaster. I believe it is impossible to overrate the importance of a flourishing, contented and professionally up-to-date teaching staff. For this, if for no other reason, I warmly welcome the proposals in the White Paper.
7.8 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, it has been a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, who, despite the fact that he spoke briefly, nevertheless was able to give to the House the benefit of his vast experience in this world of education. Those of us who have had the opportunity to sit through most of the debate can be grateful for all the speeches which have been made in the debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord who spoke from the Front Bench for his introduction of this White Paper.
Before I begin my brief speech, I would pay a tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who reminded the House that though some of us may be country bumpkins at least we cannot always be led up the garden path. My first village school was in a little village called Llandyssul in West Wales, where the river Teifi rippled and rolled gently to Cardigan Bay. It was in the shadow of the village church, and the grass grew in the playground; so there were not many of us. Some got to the university, some became doctors, some lawyers, some colliers; but whatever job they did, in some strange way they were gentlemen. That is one of the amazing things about country life. One did not have to have an education in depth. There was a natural courtesy, which many towns and cities seem to be losing in this brittle

1273
20th century. If the frontiers of knowledge are to be advanced, it is not a bit of use unless they are built on the rock of wisdom. Solomon asked not just for knowledge; he asked for wisdom.
I do not know the answers to these problems. My claim to speak in this debate is that for more than 20 years I tramped the hillsides and the valleys in adult education and sat at the feet of great men like Toynbee and William Temple, who, as the right reverend Prelate knows, was one of the finest men who "got across" to the mass of the working people the benefits of education.
I was pleased to see a reference in the White Paper to adult education, and I am also glad that the Government were able to publish the Report on adult education in time for this debate. It would be slightly out of Order to deal with that in depth, but I want to refer to it in passing. I have always believed that the pyramid of education can be balanced and firm only if down below in the primary school there is the maximum opportunity for our children. Despite the fact that I am considered to be a Socialist, I have never believed that all men are equal in capacity. But I believe that society should give equality of opportunity to human beings, particularly in the field of education, and being given that equality of opportunity, initiative and individuality should be the right of each person. Consequently, I welcome the implementation of nursery education as reported in this White Paper.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has left the Chamber. I had the privilege of listening to him in 1944 and 1945 in the other place, and many a lecture did I give in my adult W.E.A. classes on the old White Paper of 1944. While he was in this House, I should have liked to pay him tribute for that educational report which was brought out of one of the most disgusting times in the history of man, when we were killing each other all over the world, because he had the wisdom to sit back and try to evolve an educational report that would be used one day when we had peace. Consequently, I have a great respect for the work of the noble Lord and I was glad that he reminded this House that in his own Report he referred to nursery education. I hope that the words of the Report will be fully implemented.
1274
Everybody is talking about going into Europe. I am not enthusiastic about it, because we are not really going into Europe; we are going into a hunch of nations in search of an enemy. We are going into a group of nine nations, not 35. I am taking over the presidency of the Esperanto Association in this Parliament. But why can we not spend a few millions in bringing to our primary schools little mademoiselles who have only elementary French qualifications, or some students from the Sorbonne, to start French education in a kind of baby fashion in our nursery and primary schools? That would be a revolutionary step and in twenty years' time we should have a bilingual society. Masses of people are travelling all over Europe in their cars and they are beginning to get smatterings of the European languages, so that our insularity will disappear. May not this idea be a constructive step towards international understanding? Let us take, say, £10 million from the £500 million increased expenditure on armaments which this Government are to spend, and put that money into introducing a mademoiselle into every primary school in Britain for a year or two to teach French to our kiddies. It would be a lovely innovation, and would be indicative of our willingness to face the new kind of world in which we shall be living.
I want to clear up a misconception. Illiteracy does not mean that a person is a moron. Brindley, who built the canals of Britain, was completely illiterate but he was one of the finest engineers. So let us eradicate the misconception. What are we aiming at? I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, talking about getting a wider expansion. I believe that at least four years are needed at university. In a way, I helped to institute Keele University before it was built up. I had the honour to be among those who helped to inspire it. We were very fortunate indeed that its first principal was the Master of Balliol himself, who came up to Keele to get it on a good footing. So the student had one year of philosophy before he went on to his three-year course. I believe that there is time in the modern world for a four-year course, in order to get the breadth before the specialisation.

1275
We still talk of education in terms of the days before television and radio, but I believe that they represent the most dynamic tool for education. Some of the finest lessons are given, and some of the most capable teachers are working year in and year out, on television and radio. All types of lessons are broadcast—religion, science, mathematics—of the highest standard. But that tool has never been co-ordinated. I myself have watched the school broadcasts, as I am sure other noble Lords have done, while having a meal or just sitting back, and have seen lessons in sixth-form mathematics or first-form chemistry. The men presenting the lessons were really masters of their subject and, with the help of a good supplementary teacher in the classroom, a good teacher can give first-class lectures to hundreds of thousands of children and students. In the framework of education in the future, how deeply are we studying local radio and television and making use of it? Some of us listen to lessons in French and German when we are shaving in the mornings. I may be completely wrong, but I have an idea that the contribution that television has made, and the greater contribution that it can make in the future, has never been completely co-ordinated.
I know that there is contradiction here. There are people who know nothing about teaching who talk about our illiteracy. In World War I this was one of the most illiterate countries in the world. In Palmerston's day we did not even have Sandhurst; it was Palmerston who set up Sandhurst. Our soldiers went abroad to get their training and to understand logistics. Ours was considered a riffraff Army, and there was no possibility of the ordinary man in the street becoming an officer in the old Armies of those days. But I still believe that military education of a non-vocational type is valuable to men who are in the Forces, and I should not like to see that neglected in the framework of education. Also, are we quite sure that we are making clear in our debate the difference between learning, instruction and education? People who have very little capacity to use learning may learn very easily. People who are using machines and tools, often without any degrees at all, can become first-class engineers through instruction.
1276
As I said once before, a plumber putting a lead dome on a cathedral is doing a top-level trigonometrical job. Yet he can be instructed, without any complete understanding of mathematics, with a formula and other apparatus which is available to him to-day. One of the difficulties about advanced knowledge is that in laboratories to-day we have machines which are doing chemical analyses which previously took hours of work by top-level chemists. Consequently, much of this is taking the place of the old arts and crafts. So we have to be careful, in the framework of education and in the way we live to-day, that we are not giving education in a subject which will perhaps be obsolete by the time a student reaches 21 or his manhood.
I was delighted to hear the right reverend Prelate refer to special schools. Both my wife and I have an interest in one of these, and I am going to have some fun with the kiddies there next week. I should like openly here to pay tribute to the men and women who teach the under-privileged in some of these special schools. There are hundreds and thousands of these children who in some cases need as much attention as a thalidomide child. When we are thinking of the 400 or so thalidomide children, let us remember that there are some thousands of children in special schools, and that they have courageous teachers who have to deal with children who are unable to speak. I know exactly what the right reverend Prelate meant when he said that he heard a child speak, after great effort, for the first time. I see the figures here—I will not repeat them, because they are available to every Member of the House—and I am delighted. I should like to pay a tribute to the Government for this expansion in aid to special schools.
On higher education, I agree with some of my noble friends who have spoken. It seems to me that the frustum of the pyramid or cone is being cut off, and it is going to be more difficult to get to those higher echelons of education. That is a pity. I reiterate the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, that at this moment, when we have increased our military expenditure, it is a pity that here, for the matter of a few millions, we seem to be cutting back in some of the fields of higher education.

1277
Finally, are we abandoning non-vocational education? If we are, could we not lose balance because of the arid pressure of ultra-commercialism and trade on our nation? We can become a nation of Philistines, indifferent to creative ideas, indifferent to æsthetic refinement, indifferent to courtesy and manners. I can see it: indifferent to music, indifferent to art and indifferent to anything more in the art of conversation. The gift of speech then becomes monosyllabic, with cacophonic grunts such as we have from motorists when they are in a queue or a traffic jam. This is the pressure of the civilisation in which we are living; and part of the purpose of education is to be a safety valve to give men expansive ideas in the world in which they live.
I come to the last point on this White Paper. I have already asked for more information on the use of television and local radio; and the last point, which I think seems to have been neglected altogether, is education for the senior citizen—old chaps for whom, they having spent their years working hard, everything suddenly stops. There is a need to fill their lives, to eradicate loneliness in their lives. There are the healthy ones, who are still not senile. I believe that, for those about to retire, classes on the art of living, on the art of retirement, on hobbies and on interests they could take up would be a contribution to the happiness of the nation. Anything that builds the true happiness of a nation as well as giving true education helps to make the nation great. I shall leave it there and say how much I have enjoyed listening to this debate to-day.
7.25 p.m.
LORD HINTON OF BANKSIDE: My Lords, although the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is no longer in his place, I should like to join with other noble Lords who have congratulated him on his maiden speech, which was both fluent and forceful. I think that to-day we have had an extremely interesting debate, with some notable contributions; but most of those contributions have come, I think, from men who are working in the academic world, or who have spent a large part of their lives working in the academic world. I, on the other hand, have spent the whole of my life working in industry, and I do not think it is surprising if I have some views which differ
1278
from those of the academics or have some doubts which They perhaps do not feel.
I sometimes find it a little surprising that few of the people to whom I talk realise the fundamental nature of the change that was brought about by the Robbins Report in 1963. Most people seem to think that that Report simply aimed to increase the number of places in British universities. In fact, it completely changed the whole of our philosophy with regard to university education. In the pre-Robbins days, the output of the universities was roughly equated, perhaps to some extent unconsciously, to the demands in industry and in the public services for people who had the sort of mental equipment which was developed by courses of the established university type. The acceptance of the Robbins Report completely changed that. What the Robbins Report said was, "We will not equate the output of the universities to consumer requirements; we will give to all of the children who in their school education show sufficient ability the opportunity for a university course"; and that was a completely different philosophy. It was a philosophy which was widely accepted. It was welcomed by the parents; it was welcomed by children. Just as in earlier days it had been almost a social stigma for a child of the family to fail the 11-plus examination, so in the post-Robbins days it became a family status symbol for a child to get a place in a university—and, what was more, the place in the university provided the key to more remunerative employment and to better prospects of promotion.
All those bright prospects were apparently being fulfilled until within the last two or three years. Our employers were eager to take on all the graduates from the universities. In fact, our employers no longer went to the universities to decide to which graduates they would offer employment: they went to the universities so that the graduates could interview them to see which of them was offering the most attractive employment. I very much doubt whether all those employers either needed or wanted all of the skills that had been taught in the universities. What the intelligent employers wanted was to ensure that they continued to get on their staffs the appropriate cross-section of ability. In the pre-Robbins days they had been able to do this by

1279
recruiting partly from the universities and partly directly from the schools, but they realised that, with the adoption of the Robbins Report, the bright young people whom they had in earlier days recruited directly from the schools were being creamed off by State grants into the universities, and that in order to retain the same cross-section of ability they had to take those same people on as university graduates.
I think that one had an extension of this on an even higher level of education in the Royal Society's report on postgraduate training. When that report was being prepared the Royal Society wrote to a number of employers and asked whether they would continue to take on Ph.D.s, and some of those, a noticeable number, replied, "Yes"—but not because they particularly wanted the skills that had been taught in the Ph.D. course but rather because they wanted to ensure that they recruited on to their staffs a sufficient number of people of outstanding ability. I know that a lot of academics disagreed with that Royal Society report, but I have not found many people in industry who disagreed with it. Whatever the employers' motives in recruitment, until within the last three or four years most of the university graduates were managing to get jobs of the sort they hoped to get when they went to the university, but in the last two or three years things have changed and a proportion—I do not suggest it is an alarming proportion but I think it is a sufficient proportion to make us think—of university graduates have had to find employment in jobs which have hitherto been regarded as sub-professional.
That this would happen is, I think, recognised in the White Paper. Paragraph 16 says:
"The patterns of employment will continue to change as employers increasingly take the opportunity to enlarge the areas of work in which more highly educated and qualified recruits can be placed advantageously."
And there is no doubt whatever that in many occupations this will be a great advantage. In engineering, for example, it will be extremely healthy if some graduates have initially to accept jobs which have been looked on as being sub-professional jobs. If their initial jobs are as draughtsmen or junior supervisors on the
1280
shop floor—supervisory work which has hitherto been done by foremen—this will I think be an advantage, not merely to the graduate but also to industry; although it is, I believe, a change which industry will have to handle carefully in discussion with the unions.
But if an appreciable number of engineering graduates are going to have to start their paid employment in jobs which have hitherto been regarded as sub-professional, I wonder whether our university courses in engineering ought to be redesigned. Those courses at present tend to produce theoretically expert specialists rather than broadly trained generalists, and in future only a part of the output of the schools of engineering in the universities will be needed by employers as specialist experts. The rest of them will be needed as generalists and all those others might well benefit from a course which is different from the courses which are normally being given in university schools of engineering today.
When one moves outside the technological industries I sometimes wonder how far we can justify ourselves in giving university training to people who are destined for sub-professional jobs. I wonder whether the girl behind the counter in the fashionable department store is really a better shop assistant because she has a degree in history or economics—and I am told some of them have, and presumably it cost us, including overheads, something between £4,000 or £5,000 and £10,000 to give them that qualification. I wonder whether those girls are happier as women or whether their lives are richer or more satisfying. The White Paper says that higher education is valuable for its contribution to the personal development of those who pursue it, but does university education as at present planned always lead to greater happiness and greater fulfilment? I wonder sometimes whether it may just produce graduates who are disillusioned and disappointed. Even allowing for the exubance of youth, I think that some of the student unrest in universities may suggest that there is some disillusionment there. Are we, I wonder, trying to force students who are unsuited to it through too prolonged a course of academic study?
In his Croonian Lecture to the Royal Society in 1972 on the subject of

1281
Functional Ethology, Professor Tinbergen said—and I am quoting:
"The education of children has changed almost beyond recognition, into an extremely demanding training for modern citizenship … are there signs that this new situation imposes demands on 'human nature' that exceed the limits of its adaptability?"
Professor Tinbergen points out that the pattern of learning among young animals is normally by the experimental performance, under supervision, of behaviour that will be vital to existence in adult life, and goes on to say that this was, until quite recently, the way in which most young human animals were taught. He points out quite rightly that schools are a relatively recent cultural phenomenon. Universities are perhaps not so new a phenomenon as schools but until recently they catered mainly for an academically minded minority. Are we, I wonder, quite sure that as they are at present run they are suited to the mental make-up of the much greater number of people who are being put through them? Are we perhaps already exceeding the number of young people who can usefully be put through a full-time course of the traditional university type, or ought those courses to be redesigned?
I sometimes wonder whether this question is being asked of the right people. From time to time the Ministry appoint advisory committees to tell them what should be done regarding higher education, but it always seems to me that the membership of those committees is made up of academics or of training or personnel officers from industry—made up, in fact, of people who have a vested interest in academically biased education. I do not see among the members of those committees very many of the men whose job it is to get work done by the graduates, who are the saleable or unsaleable output of the universities. I do not blame the Minister of Education for the make-up of these committees. I am sure that the training and personnel officers who sit on them are nominated by industry and I guess that in these modern days the departmental heads in industry who make those nominations are too busy to interest themselves in the training of young people or, alternatively, they think that training is something which they should not he expected to do, that it is something which should be done for them
1282
by the universities or the polytechnics or by their own training departments.
During my lifetime we have gained tremendously in education but I think that one of the things that we have lost is this sense among senior staff in industry that it is a great part of their responsibility to train the younger people who work under them. When I started my paid employment, which was rather over 55 years ago, it was as an apprentice in railway workshops where about 10,000 men were employed; yet although the works general manager had 10,000 men with the maximum allowable number of apprentices under him, he and all his departmental managers knew personally all the bright young apprentices. I do not suggest that they were readily available to us during working hours but they came to our engineering society meetings, read papers, took part in discussions and went on works visits with us. When I went on after four and a half years to the drawing office the assistant chief draughtsman, in those days only three steps down from chief mechanical engineer and a possible knighthood, was constantly round our drawing boards giving advice and, more often, criticism. That sort of training was still being given until after the Second World War. In the draft of her official history of the Atomic Energy organisation in its early post-war years, Mrs. Gowing rightly says that the departmental heads in all the branches of that organisation—and here I am quoting:
"…were in and out of the laboratories, the drawing offices, the workshops and sites, talking to their scientists, their technicians and their workmen. They talked and listened to junior as well as senior staff—to experimental officers as well as scientists, to draughtsmen as well as engineers."
She goes on to say:
"Many of those junior men soared quickly. Atomic Energy was the most sophisticated project that the 20th century had yet seen, yet it produced an upward mobility, a possibility for those with little previous education to rise, which was more characteristic of the 19th century."
That I think was because so much training was done by the senior staff on the job. I believe that that training is far less done to-day and it is, I think, a very great loss. University education can provide the foundation for this training and it can supplement it; but to my mind it is no substitute for training on the job.

1283
I wish I knew how that trend can be reversed but I do not. In fact, I am afraid that I am making an unsatisfactory speech because I am asking a number of questions and raising a number of doubts without answering any of the questions or stilling any of the doubts. So I think it might be wise for me to go on and see what there is that I can say more positively.
I am extremely glad to see from the White Paper that more money is being deployed on higher education and I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in her hope that before too many additional places in universities are created, the question of student grants will be examined. It seems to me to be wrong to spread the available money over so many students that none of them has enough to enjoy the broadening experience of a reasonably enjoyable communal life, which, to my mind, is so much part of university training. For a similar reason, I hope that the geographical zoning of students will not be carried out too far. Carried to the unthinkable limit, it would mean that some of our urban universities could become very much like the Open University with the length of its television link reduced to zero.
Although it is not directly mentioned in the White Paper, I should like to say how much I regret the directive issued by the U.G.C. at the beginning of the present quinquennium which aimed at a reduction in the number of students taking, courses in the sciences and technologies with more than a corresponding increase in the number of students studying the humanities. I know that there has been difficulty in finding jobs for all the graduates in the sciences and technologies; I know that there is great student pressure for places in the humanities. Some of us who had been scientists or technologists think this is because the humanities are believed to offer a soft option. I do not believe that either of these considerations provides a sufficient reason for the change which is being pressed for by the U.G.C. I think that when one is considering university education one ought always to remember the remark that Sir Charles Inglis, the great professor of engineering at Cambridge, made to me some years before it first got into print, when he said:
1284
"The spirit of education is that habit of mind which remains with the student long after he has forgotten everything that he has been taught."
It seems to me that the training of the scientists and technologists can produce minds which are at least as well disciplined as those trained in the humanities. I do not think it would be any bad thing if some of the jobs which have traditionally gone to people trained in the humanities went instead to people trained in the sciences and technologies. I hope that I shall not hurt too many people's feeling if I quote another professor, the late Lord Cherwell, who used to say that if he were as ignorant of the arts as his arts colleagues were of the sciences they would dismiss him as an ignorant oaf.
I am glad that in spite of the fact that sandwich courses are rather expensive there appears to be no intention of discouraging them. I believe that in certain subjects they are tremendously useful. I think that their wider adoption might provide something of a solution to some of the problems that I have indicated earlier on. I hope (the noble Lord, Lord Blake, made this point) that the polytechnics will be discouraged from—I have not time to choose my words very carefully—apeing the universities. I would disagree with the noble Lord about the importance he attaches to the polytechnics, although I think that they have an extremely important field to cover. Finally, my Lords, I am extremely glad to see that importance is attached to the technical colleges. I hope that in allocating money to them the Ministry will always remember that good staff is much more important than expensive equipment. I am interested to go round the technical colleges to-day and to see that the equipment there is far more expensive and sophisticated than anything we ever dreamed of in the Cambridge University engineering laboratories when I was a student undergraduate there.
7.50 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I, too, would like to join with others in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, on his maiden speech. I appreciate the sincerity with which he spoke, and he spoke from practical experience. I look forward to hearing him again in the future. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for introducing the debate

1285
and creating an opportunity for further debate on this subject. I hope that he will forgive me if I take this opportunity to air a bit of a grievance. I must apologise to your Lordships for intervening in a debate which is concerned principally with the education of the English and the Welsh, But in the United Kingdom, by some curious evolution of the administration of education, the care of the Scottish universities have been entrused to the English Ministry of Education. Consequently, when something goes wrong in the Scottish universities, other than student riots, we have to put the case before the English Secretary of State for Education and Science and that is what I want to do now.
My Lords, I should like to draw attention to the fact that certain of the Scottish universities have been treated somewhat shabbily by the University Grants Committee in the allocation of grant for the current quinquennium; and the University Grants Committee is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Ministry of Education and Science for England and Wales. For only two of the eight Scottish universities does the recurrent grant for the current year come up to the U.K. average. Only one is getting more than the U.K. average. The other six are below, some of them substantially so. By far the worst cases in Scotland are St. Andrew's University and Heriot-Watt University. In respect of this recurrent grant I think they are the worst furnished universities in the whole of the United Kingdom. I am not complaining because they are getting less than the average in the recurrent grant; I am complaining that they are getting so very much less than the average. For the first year of the current quinquennium the recurrent grant works out at a national average of £1,216 per full-time student. The grant to Heriot-Watt is only £825 per full-time student, a short-fall from the average of £391 per student or roughly 30 per cent. less. St. Andrew's University is worse off with a grant of only £810 per student, about 33 per cent. less than the average. It is true that as the quinquennium advances the recurrent grant to HeriotWatt and St. Andrew's approaches the national average for the year 1976–77. But even then it will still be about 9 per cent. below the average.
My Lords, in a way it is rather gratifying to us as Scots that you English
1286
recognise that we in Scotland run our education with greater economy than is the case South of the Border. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, for drawing the attention of your Lordships to the great difference between the universities North and South of the Border. I do not want to go on to say that you English are deliberately exploiting us, but I think you are taking an unfair advantage of us in Scotland and of our apparently greater efficiency and economy. To compare Heriot-Watt with like universities in England, new universities which were colleges of advanced technology, is to discover that with one exception the new English universities such as Aston, Bradford, Brunel, City and Surrey, are receiving grants greatly in excess of the national average. I ask my noble friend Lord Belstead to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the consequences of this treatment of St. Andrew's and Heriot-Watt.
I can speak with precision only about the latter, but it seems that there is no money whatsoever for academic development. The staff of the university have been waiting for this quinquennium; I would say that they have been literally gasping for it. Certainly they were not expecting the millennium, but they never anticipated a freeze without any academic development. Without any development whatsoever taking place their university will go into the red and the increase in the grants in the latter years will all go into getting the accounts back into balance. So at the end of the quinquennium we shall be no better off from the point of view of academic development than we were at the beginning, and unless something is done there will be no academic development during the current five years. My Lords, there is no framework for expansion there. In any case, the university was expecting financial difficulties owing to working on two sites, the old and the new, for the next five years. It is clear that the University Grants Committee has made an inadequate allowance for this. It is probably an oversight on its part, but we should be most grateful if someone would take a second look at this matter. My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the U.G.C. for the steady help they are giving in the construction of the new buildings on the new site.

1287
Besides twin site working, there is another point where universities are particularly hard struck—I refer to the student residences. Roughly speaking, it costs something like £1,600 per student to build quite modest accommodation. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred to the accommodation being presently built at new universities as "boxes", and it is very little better than that. But we have not the money for more. Admittedly, the U.G.C. provides about 20 per cent. of the cost but the rest has to be raised in the form of loans. For Heriot-Watt it means raising somewhere about £1 million to provide on the new site the residences required in the immediate future.
I note that in the White Paper the Government have decided to allocate £29 million for the building programme for 1974–75, and that, in deciding this amount, they have taken special note of the need for more residential places. May I make an appeal for special preference to be given to the "new poor" among the universities; those universities with no endowments behind them. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for mentioning the plight of these new universities. The University Grants Committee has recently written to the vice-chancellors concerning expansion for the next quinquennium, 1977–82. Would the Government consider the consequences of a six-year freeze? You cannot take a bunch of disillusioned academics out of a deep freeze and expect them to expand with enthusiasm whenever the Government decide the moment has come to lift the lid. Anyhow, once bitten in hopes deferred, such academics become twice shy of Government promises of expansion.
My Lords, I have one final point regarding the employment of graduates. Whatever is happening at the comparable English universities—and the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, has drawn attention to the increasing difficulties they appear to be having—in regard to Scotland I can say that the graduates in engineering and science at the two technological universities of Strathclyde and Heriot-Watt are having no difficulty in getting worthwhile jobs in their professions. It may be that this is because they are more broadly educated, as the noble Lord. Lord Hinton, said and as was mentioned by the noble
1288
Lord, Lord Robbins. It may be that they are more professionally orientated in their actual instruction. In both of these technological universities the annual intake of school leavers has for many years been quite heavily over-subscribed. It is a sound military maxim to reinforce success. I think this holds also for education. At any rate, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to draw it to the attention of his right honourable friend. I thank your surviving Lordships for listening so patiently to this somewhat sorry tale.
8.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be relieved to know that at this late hour I shall not be speaking for more than 10 minutes. I wish to confine my remarks almost entirely to university education. Some noble Lords will remember that I initiated a debate on this subject in November, 1971, and having since then discussed the matter with several people, I have found no reason to change the views that I then expressed. I should like to emphasise, however, that I am no expert in this field, and all I want to do is to raise a number of questions and to suggest possible changes for consideration by those who are responsible. I cannot, I am afraid, entirely do this without its being done in a critical vein.
The number of universities and university students has been greatly increased during the last decade, and with the changes which have taken place in our society there would seem to be a strong case for clearly defining the aims of university education and making such changes as may be necessary to meet them. I would suggest that the aims might be covered under three headings: first, to train future academics and research workers—this is, broadly speaking, only, applicable to those capable of getting a first or high second-class degree; secondly, to give students training which will be useful in their work afterwards and so be of direct benefit to the nation; and thirdly, to develop intellectual ability and to make students happier and better potential citizens in the broadest sense of the word.
I would not for one moment maintain that university education cannot be fully justified in the last of these objectives alone, but I believe in fact that a great

1289
number of Arts courses as they stand to-day would not qualify. There is in some quarters a convenient belief that whatever is taught, and however badly it might be taught, at a university, has a magical property and is self-justified. That, I am afraid, is quite untrue. An essential part of higher education is, in my view, to develop an ability to think clearly, to be able to analyse problems logically and impartially, and to approach supposed facts as propaganda with reasoned scepticism. To achieve this, I believe we need to introduce additional studies in many of the Arts courses; something on the lines of rhetoric and studies with the same purposes as those included in business colleges, such as Henley would help.
The most useful part of my education in this respect was the Army Staff College. I wonder whether the universities have ever tried to study and look into the techniques of instruction and content of such courses. It is only recently that courses for university lecturers have been started. It may be true that a first-class brain can learn from someone, however bad his lectures and methods of expression. It most certainly is not true for the majority of students. The poor quality of some lectures means that students do not attend them and they are forced back too far on their own resources.
My Lords, before leaving the subject of Arts courses, I think there are three facts which point to some need for change in approach: first, industry no longer welcomes Arts graduates in the way it used to; secondly, many students feel that they are wasting their time and gaining nothing useful for the future; and thirdly, there is a significantly greater degree of student unrest in many of the Arts faculties. For a long time we have talked about giving some Arts training to scientists and engineers, which is an important matter. But, as another noble Lord has said, I believe that to-day the boot is on the other foot, and every Arts student should know what science is about because of its impact on modern life.
I should now like to mention some directions in which I suggest we might move with advantage. In general, it seems that the more mature a student the more likely he or she is to benefit from and use to advantage the time at univer-
1290
sity. Students also find difficulty in adapting themselves to the often harsher and less congenial outside life when they leave university. From this I suggest it follows that there is a great deal to be said for thick sandwich university courses, and that a year's gap between leaving school and going to university is desirable if this time can be employed profitably.
Looking ahead, I wonder whether something on the lines of community service within the E.E.C. countries could not be organised to meet this need. Academic training may be important, but development of personality and character is far more so. Nearly everyone has a desire to do something worth while which may not necessarily benefit himself, and this desire must not be frustrated in early life. I suppose that most universities would still regard themselves primarily as seats of learning, and would say that research is all-important. I question whether that is right; their main priority perhaps, ought to be their students.
Because research funds to-day are completely inadequate to finance all useful research, we have at last exploded the myth that all research is per se justified. It ought now to be justified on grounds of philosophical or practical value, its point and purpose. Publish and survive should no longer be the maxim. Teaching must be regarded as every bit as important as research. The fairy godmother, on the whole, distributed our talents if not evenly, at least with some regard for this precept. Einstein, one of the most brilliant brains in modern history, was a fool in practical terms. There are first-class brains which combine everything; they are unassailable and rise to the top. But if you base a corporate body on brain power alone, you should at least question the wisdom of doing so. The old definition of a specialist who knows more and more about less and less is perhaps relevant.
I conclude that from the students' point of view we may have the wrong balance in universities of too many brilliant academics and not enough leaders of men. It is wrong to conclude that those who have gone straight from university to be lecturers are necessarily capable of imparting to students the wisdom which a wider experience would yield. The remedy, I should think, is that there must be an equal career for those who are good

1291
teachers and people experienced in life as there is for the gifted academics and research workers.
My Lords, I regard what might be termed the ethos of a university as all important. A university should not collect a wholly unrepresentative proportion of those with Left wing and extremist points of view. It should, as for example Durham does, take a real interest in the student personally. It is quite wrong to think that a student of 19 or 20 can work under conditions which would not produce useful results from a much more mature person. One cannot work without an immediately worthwhile objective or alternatively without the incentive of being part of a team or, as in later life, because one is in command and responsible for those working under one. If I am right in this view, are these factors sufficiently realised? I think we must discourage those who are unlikely to benefit from university from automatically going there as the course of least resistance. That is why I recently recommended that a small part of student grants should take the form of a repayable loan. A university is not the only form of education (I use the term in its broadest sense) and for some it is certainly not the best or most appropriate.
I conclude that if we are to preserve the best of the traditions of our universities—and my criticisms are directed not so much to these traditions but to their applicability to the new role which has been forced on universities—then I think we should move in two directions: first, to change those things in universities which clearly need modernisation; and secondly, to increase the rÔle of polytechnics and limit the intake to universities to those who will clearly benefit most from their régime.
I would venture one piece of advice to all those—and they are many—within universities who can affect their future destiny. It is this: one can never for long resist an inevitable change. If, therefore, change is inevitable, it is wise to make it on one's own terms and in time; otherwise much that is valuable is swept away when the walls are breached. In military terms, one should never lose the initiative. In my view the writing was faintly on the wall three or four years ago; to-day I believe it is there quite plainly for all to read unless they look away. I appeal
1292
to those in the ivory towers to take some action before what they and I think is important in this age of change is lost for ever.
8.14 p.m.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, it is now my great pleasure to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Swinton on his maiden speech. He has shown himself worthy of every possible encouragement to come and speak often in your Lordships' House, as he clearly has valuable experience on the subject. Education is so important that it is often referred to, directly or indirectly, in your Lordships' House, and I feel confident that we shall not have to wait very much longer before we hear more of his valuable comments. I was particularly interested in the speech of my noble friend Lord Balerno, and thank him for bringing to your Lordships' attention the needs of Heriot-Watt College, Edinburgh. I was interested in his speech, for I was a student there for a short time.
I must declare an interest in this debate. My noble friend Lord Blake said that his father had been a teacher. I have a daughter who is only 13½ years old, and children change their minds a lot, but for almost five years she has been giving constant affirmation that she wants to be a teacher. I wish to add my support to the proposals for early education of young children, particularly the plans for nursery schools. This shows that we have a Government who, not only because they are the Government of the moment, are getting down to tackling the problem affecting millions of people, and those important people, the young married couples, with children. The Government are not only tackling the problem but are able to give definite confidence that a result can be expected.
Times and lives change rapidly now. Once a woman's main career was marriage, taking care of the home and bringing up the children, but it is possible to-day for both husband and wife to be wage-earners. A woman who has a definite ability to earn, and earn well, is likely to feel very frustrated if her duties as a wife and mother tie her constantly to a life of household chores with little variety or opportunity to meet her friends. In some homes the frustration finally reaches boiling point; the wife, resenting

1293
the presence of the children, unfortunately "takes it out" on them, and sometimes the husband as well. Anger and shouting, and even blows, follow. The result of this, and the harm it can do, need no additional reminder that a child's suffering in a home life such as this means that it is in grave danger of being affected in its early years so that for the rest of its life the child will be a poor performer.
Paragraph 19 of the White Paper shows the value of nursery education in promoting social development in young children. Careful education at such a tender age can develop skill in a child which is of great advantage in its remaining education. To quote from the paragraph in the Report:
"They are capable of developing further in the use of language, in thought and practical skills, than was previously supposed."
In connection with these nursery schools, and our relations with the European countries, with which we are now joined by the EEC, there is the possibility that perhaps members of the Government have already foreseen—perhaps plans have matured—of some form of international nursery school being set up. Young children of various nationalities can be put into school together at a very early age and there may be all the more opportunity for international understanding overcoming national prejudices.
I recall that lovable character of Neville Shute in his novel Pied Piper who started to take two children home to Britain across war-torn France and ended up with quite a bunch of children of all nationalities. He said—and I regret I cannot recall the actual words of the text—something like this: children have a way of communicating without having to know each other's language. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Belstead will say, when he sums up, whether the Government are entertaining anything resembling such a plan as international nursery schools, or whether the suggestion has any chance of being put into practice. In the areas of this country, where people of various nationalities are living as neighbours, the results that such nursery schools might show could be a valuable pointer to any extension of the scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady White, spoke last night in the debate on Northern Ireland about the danger of apartheid education, and I should be
1294
able to see some solution to the problems she was stressing if these nursery schools could come into practice.
There is another matter which has been mentioned already by my noble friend Lord Belstead in his opening speech: that is the debate in December last, which was initiated by my noble friend Lady Brooke, about aphasic children. My noble friend Lord Belstead was replying on behalf of the Government at the end of that debate. Just recently I have attended two meetings on speech therapy, and that debate was mentioned at considerable length at each of them. This is another pleasing example of how the outside world takes note of what is said in your Lordships' House. I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could let me know if any provision is being made concerning the availability of speech therapists to attend nursery schools. They need not be members of the staff but they could attend in an advisory capacity, and this would give them the opportunity to study many forms of speech defects, many of which arise at an early age. If quick correction and cure could be found for children who are affected in these ways it would be of incalculable value in overcoming an obstacle to leading a useful life. In stressing once more my support for these new schools, I do so not just because I believe we are talking about another good idea but because this is an idea which is already on its way to fruition. The Inner London Education Authority has already made plans, and discussions are taking place with certain London boroughs. What can be achieved in London in the near future and what success can be shown, it is to be hoped will be followed by other authorities.
8.23 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, those of us who have sat through this somewhat lengthy debate have certainly been given much food for thought. It is a very big subject, and although we have been discussing this for quite a long time I am sure we appreciate there is a great deal that could be said. The contributions to which we have listened have certainly been thoughtful and informed, and many of them have contained constructive criticisms. I should like to say that some of the speakers to which we have listened towards the close

1295
of the debate have been extremely good and worthy of a larger audience. I can only hope that what has been said will be read in Hansard.
May I say that we were charmed by the humour of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, whose maiden speech disclosed not only his interest in the subject but also a knowledge which could only come from day-to-day involvement. I echo what has already been said: I hope that we shall hear more from him in subsequent education debates. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, opened the debate with a speech of considerable eloquence and tremendous enthusiasm, considering the material he had to deal with, because he certainly puts the White Paper across in the best possible light. If I see some blemishes in it, I am sure he will not be surprised. May I say, without wanting to go into too much detail, that I took note of what the noble Lord, Lord Blake, had to say. He protested that the White Paper represented not a cutback but—I think he put it in these words—"A reduction in the rate of expansion". I think that is something to be underlined at the close of the debate. I have no quarrel with what he said on that. My noble friend Lady Phillips gave a penetrating speech, which was well informed and displayed her long experience in education.
We have had one or two quite outstanding contributions, particularly—and this seems to have been generally agreed —that from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and the one from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. As this is the last speech we are likely to hear from him on the subject of education, I should like to say that over the years we have come to look forward to his contributions to our debates. We appreciate the depth of his knowledge and we thank him for the interest he has taken in the subject. I found myself very much in agreement with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, had to say. I am sure that we were all delighted to have the noble Lord, Lord Butler, here with us. It reminded me that I had so much to do with a close colleague of his, and one whose name should be mentioned—that is, the late Chuter Ede, as he was at that time. I think he deserves a mention here because he devoted a life-
1296
time of service to education and I doubt whether many people have made a greater contribution than he. Certainly, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, would be the first to acknowledge the very great help given by Mr. Ede when the 1944 Act was in preparation.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, that I was sorry there were not a number of noble Baronesses present when he questioned the value of women going to university and not pursuing a career other than that of a housewife. I would have thought it would be an excellent thing for a mother to be able to talk to her children from the kind of experience she would have had at university. How does anyone know?—she may well set alight a mind that could benefit the whole of humanity, not because of what she did in her career but because of what she did as a mother bringing up children.
LORD HINTON OF BANKSIDE: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, I think the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I did not mention housewives in any way: in fact, I had nothing whatever to say about them.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am quite sure the noble Lord is right, but I was carrying the ladies a little further along the road than he did. I think what I said was a logical development of the train of thought that certainly the noble Lord stirred up in me. If I have done him an injustice, I am indeed very sorry and I apologise to him, but I am not sure that I have. The universities have not been without their spokesmen in this debate. I shall be coming back to that again presently. At the moment, because I think the subject deserves more consideration than perhaps it has had, I want to return to the subject of nursery education.
The White Paper accepts the Plowden estimates and proposes to provide for 90 per cent. of four-year olds and 50 per cent. of three-year olds, of which 15 per cent. are to have full-time education and the remainder part-time. That is four-year olds and three-year olds whose parents, it is estimated, will wish them to attend. Since provision is not being made for 100 per cent. of these age groups it is extremely important that the most needy children should be included among

1297
those who do go to school. Those who live in homes which are socially or culturally fortunate, those who live in homes which are linguistically enriched, will have much less need than those whose homes are socially deprived, culturally starved and linguistically poor.
There are one or two points that I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and perhaps he can give some information when he replies to the debate. First, may I ask what steps the Government will take to ensure that priority is given to those areas where social deprivation is likely to be greatest in extent, generally referred to as the "educational priority areas"? Speaking from my own experience, I have no doubt at all that the most affluent areas, such as in parts of the South-East, will be very quick off the mark in making proposals, and I think we have to be careful that they do not get an unfair share of the cake. Secondly, I should like to stress how important it is that the benefits of nursery education should be impressed on the parents of socially, culturally, deprived children. If we are to succeed in this it will need a campaign beginning in the pre-natal clinics, following through to the ante-natal clinics, extending right into the shopping centres and the market-places such as the "Co-ops" and Woolworth's and other such establishments by way of advertisement. Somehow the advantages of nursery education must be plugged to the right people—nursery education, not to look after children while mother is out at work but because of the advantage that the child will enjoy as a result of it.
I suggest that what is needed is the appointment of education visitors to the homes of the very young children in these areas, to discuss with the mothers how they should prepare for school; advise them on reading material; advise about listening to music and looking at good paintings and pictures and, above all, to help the mother to learn how to converse in that kind of way that will stimulate the mind of the youngster, so that when it gets to school it can understand and mix and speak, and in other words have a very different start from that which many of them have at the present time. The very experience of informed conversation with the mother is most helpful. The visitor needs to be a nursery-trained
1298
teacher or to have some other special training. I believe that the district of Denaby in Yorkshire has done some pioneer work in this direction, and there is the "playmobile", a converted bus, used, I think, in Liverpool by mothers and children when they are brought out to talk about things in the bus. Developments along these lines could do much to create an understanding of the value of, and the wish for, nursery education for those who most need it.
Lest we imagine that the targets of 50 per cent. of three-year olds and 90 per cent. of four-year olds (most of which is part-time) are revolutionary, it is well to recall that in this century the public and private educational provision has fallen considerably, from 43 per cent. in 1900 to 15 per cent. in 1969, and if nursery classes are to be really valuable the teachers must be properly trained. And let us recognise that in the early years we shall depend a great deal on in-service training. I hope we shall get a number of new nursery schools as well as nursery classes. Obviously the class is an easy answer in many places, but, without repeating what they say, I am impressed by what ILEA have set out—and I quote from the report that they discussed at their meeting recently. I am quite sure the noble Lord will have a copy of it.
"The White Paper speaks of 'objectives' and it tells us in paragraph 34 that the Government are to 'set up a research programme to monitor the development of the new provision'. It is a great pity that they are not more specific and detailed on the objectives, for they are not clearly spelled out. This is disturbing; for how can success and failure be monitored if we are not told? What is going to count as success or failure in this field?"
I was most interested in a publication issued by the Welsh Committee of the National Union of Teachers, Nursery Education in Wales. If time had permitted I should have liked to quote from their summary of recommendations. May I just quote the last recommendation, No. 17:
"The committee believes that the definition of a nursery class should be provided by the Department of Education and Science"—
and there is a great deal more in this publication than that.
I should now like to turn to an aspect of the service of education that was the subject of the speech made by my noble

1299
friend Lady Gaitskell; that is to say, secondary education. Nowhere is the White Paper more depressing. To me it reveals a lack of deep appreciation of the challenge—and a very considerable challenge—in this field. So far as the White Paper is concerned, the question of comprehensive education and the policy towards it is practically a vacuum. Here there is apparently real poverty of thought, and the reason may not be too difficult to trace. It is, I believe, because there is an absence of any educational philosophy which conforms to a democratic society which seeks to provide opportunity for full and equal education to the point where opportunity continues for those who can benefit beyond it. The failure, as I see it, lies in the unwillingness to appreciate that the continuance of selection, the insistence on the retention of elitist schools, makes nonsense. No system can be called comprehensive where selection is retained. "Comprehensive" means exactly what it says. The theory that a selective school can co-exist alongside a non-selective one on equal terms does not stand up for a single minute. It ignores the facts as it ignores the issue. The facts are simple. I do not recall their being stated in this House since I have been a Member of it. I may be wrong, but perhaps it is time they were put on the record.
Staffing is seriously influenced by the points system. The selective school with a large sixth form is much better off than a non-selective one with a proportionally smaller top to the school. I should like to remind the House how points are allocated. Each pupil under 13 years of age counts as one and a half units; each pupil aged 13 and under 15 counts as two units; each pupil aged 15 and under 16 counts as four units; each pupil aged 16 and under 17 counts as six units; and each pupil 17 and over counts as ten units—and it is the total of points that determines the scale of posts of responsibility which are available in the school. Hence the calibre of staff is dynamically affected greatly to the advantage of the school which retains the majority of the pupils beyond compulsory school-leaving age. The creaming off of pupils in the highest ability range, those who tend to stay on, has an effect therefore on staffing as well as being
1300
socially divisive. The fact is that a selective system provides a built-in advantage for what we know as the grammar school —and I admire the work they have done tremendously—at the expense of the other schools, without overall gain, and indeed with considerable wastage of resources.
I took the trouble to check on how this system operated in a borough very near to where I live. I shall give your Lordships the figures for a bilateral school with 1,191 pupils. They get a point range of between 54 and 74 and the borough education committee is able to fix its total units at about half way. Let us take the figure at 96. A nearby grammar school for boys with 667 pupils gets between 86 and 106 units. Therefore, the grammar school has half as many points again as the bilateral school although the latter school has nearly twice as many pupils. That is what is wrong with the argument that a grammar school can run alongside and on equal terms with a comprehensive school. Too often one hears from the heads of the large non-selective schools with a number of young people staying on at the top, that in order to give the sixth form the kind of opportunities that will make them appear to be competing successfully at "A" level, the other youngsters do not get the kind of attention that the heads would like them to have.
The situation is in no way aided by the inadequate provision in this White Paper for secondary school buildings. The White Paper speaks of substantial programmes for replacement of unsatisfactory primary schools, initiated in 1972/73. It then goes on to say that the time has come to do something about the secondary schools. But there is not a word in the White Paper that for the two years 1972/73 and 1973/74 there has been no money at all allocated for the improvement and replacement of secondary schools. We raised this matter some time ago with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. It is important that we should remember it here to-day. We are all tremendously glad that so much has been done in the field of primary education. All of us are tremendously glad to hear of and welcome the extension of nursery education that this White Paper promises us. But we have been and are concerned that the secondary schools have had to contend with difficulties that they ought not to be called upon to face if

1301
the young people attending them are to get anything like the opportunity they ought to have. It is no use talking about juvenile delinquency if we do not see to it that in the last years at school the pupils have conditions where education can be made interesting; where they can be persuaded not to leave in advance of the compulsory school-leaving age.
The White Paper reminds us about the raising of the school-leaving age to 16. Again, we are very glad that this is being done. There is no division between us on that at all. The secondary schools, in order to meet the raising of the school-leaving age, need the injection of considerable sums of money to make that extra year thoroughly worth while. I know about the ROSLA units. I have seen them and watched them, and I say that there are not enough. Many more are needed. In the last year youngsters of 15 to 16 will come to a point where they continue to benefit from the education that is being offered to them.
If the Secretary of State had believed in a comprehensive secondary system she would have appreciated that the decision to deprive the secondary schools in the way I have mentioned was not only utterly unhelpful but has proved to be an effective block to progress. As it is, we are told that the £10 million will be provided in 1975–76 and 1976–77. Again, I should like to quote what ILEA has to say regarding that, because ILEA says that if it had the whole allocation it would take them ten years at this £10 million rate to replace all their pre-1903 secondary schools. The Thomas Calton school in Southwark stands as a monument to the restrictions which the present Secretary of State has imposed. We heard this evening that once again the Defence Estimates will be greater than the Education Estimates. As I heard that I could have wished that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had been Secretary of State for Education and Science and the present holder of the post, the right honourable lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science had been Minister of Defence. I cannot see his Lordship allowing that situation easily to occur.
It would be churlish to fail to recognise the allocations for special schools. Again these are very welcome. But there is no
1302
clear indication as to what the future development should be in this area. One or two noble Lords have suggested that children with special needs should be catered for in normal schools. If that argument makes any appeal, then may I ask the noble Lord to give an assurance that it will be the Government's determination to bring down the maximum number of children in primary school classes from 40 to 30? We should certainly like to have a clearer indication than the White Paper gives us. Otherwise, if we put children with a considerable handicap or with any substantial handicap into a normal class, then we are imposing an added burden on the teacher with the inevitable consequence that the other youngsters in the class will not get the attention which they ought to have—if the child with the need is going to receive attention.
I refer to what is set out on page 48 of the White Paper. Between the years 1971–72 to 1981–82 there is a fall in capital expenditure from £295 million to £190 million, for although replacement and improvement rise from £32 million to £95 million—and I am giving the total—the figure for basic needs falls from £263 million to £95 million. I should like to ask what is the explanation for that? We ought to be anticipating increased numbers staying on after 16 for non "A" level work. What consideration has been given to the division of the 16 to 19-year olds between secondary schools and further education?
May I now just briefly touch on one or two matters with regard to universities and teacher training, which I do not think have been raised. I want to return to what the noble Lord, Lord Blake, had to say with regard to drop-outs. I have been worried about this for a very considerable period of time. I am not sure that it is fair to compare university drop-outs with the situation in polytechnics at this stage, because when universities are first set up they usually have a pretty high rate of drop-outs; it tends to fall as they become established. Some of our polytechnics have got a very long way to go, and they have to work from very different beginnings. I was not sure that it was fair to compare them. I want to ask whether anything is being done, because something ought to be done, to prevent these drop-outs.

1303
As I understand it (and I think it has only to be said to be obvious), the young person who goes to university and drops out thereby loses any benefit he or she may have gained from having secured "A" levels. I think it is a terrible waste. As I see it, the universities have been able to choose perhaps a little too easily. Some of them choose very carefully, but others, if they want to build up a course, take in much too easily. There ought to be more thought; there ought to be more done to divert people who have chosen wrongly, and I gather that the Government are thinking somewhat along these lines. I would not have touched on it but for the fact that the noble Lord raised it. It would be quite wrong that these drop-outs should be turned out as people not worthy of further consideration. I think many of them are in the wrong place. I think many of them are pursuing wrong courses. I have discussed this with staff at the Surrey University. I think a great deal more needs to be done.
May I come to student numbers. The White Paper gives us a total figure in 1981 of 750,000. The Education Planning Paper No. 2, in 1970, gave a figure of 835,000. I would ask, why the reduction; how was it decided? There is a great deal in the White Paper also with regard to students living at home while attending university. If we are going to have an increase, we are either going to have a great many more local universities or else somebody is going to have to give a great deal of consideration to the question of public transport. Housing is bad enough, but public transport is almost non-existent in many parts of the country, and if students have to have their own motor-cars then certainly they will need much larger grants. I was going to touch on the question of teacher training. My noble friend Lady Phillips dealt with that at some length. I do just want to make the point that the National Union of Teachers are very concerned at the figure that is given in the White Paper. They feel that it falls seriously short of what will be required in 1981.
Finally, my Lords, may I say that I hope there will be greater consultation in the future than there has been in the past because teachers' organisations are
1304
complaining. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, can hold himself for a minute, because I am just finishing. I will leave it at that. I am sorry if I have spoken at some length, but it seemed to me that one or two of the matters I have dealt with deserved rather more consideration, perhaps, than they have had in the debate.
8.54 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I would thank your Lordships for taking part in this debate, and I would like especially to thank the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, for coming to the House to-day to make his maiden speech. I think Lord Butler said all that should be said about the memory of his grandfather in your Lordships' House. For myself, I have known the noble Earl for a little while. I know that he was vice-chairman of his education committee. I have also known that he was chairman of his authority's primary school committee. Behind a good deal of what the noble Earl said this afternoon lies an intimate knowledge of school problems as they affect the North of England. I have also come to know the noble Earl as a very well informed and resourceful negotiator when he speaks for his authority. I must say I am very pleased that he is now speaking here, and I think all of us who know the noble Baroness, his wife, and appreciate her abilities are delighted that the noble Earl has now joined her in your Lordships' House. I would also thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for coming here to-day. I think that the House listened very closely to what he said about many things, not least about nursery education when he reminded us that this White Paper merely puts into practice what he had directed should be put into practice thirty years ago.
The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, welcomed the fact that the provision for nursery education would be mainly part-time, and this was particularly striking because it is not generally a thing which people go out of their way to welcome. It is true, of course, that it is cheaper, but why I was grateful to my noble friend for saying the words he did was that we as a Government do genuinely believe that it will give the opportunity for the three-year-old child to go all the way through, up to the age of 11, if that is

1305
the age for transfer. Your Lordships might be interested to know that the Department is preparing at the moment a design note, as we call it, No. 11, describing the Chaucer infant and nursery school, which is going to be built, we hope, at Ilkeston in Derbyshire; one aspect of this is going to be to design trying to see that, although there will be sensible separation between the very young nursery children and the rather older infant children, there will also be links through from the one to the other. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London might also be interested to know that in this project there are particularly going to be arranged through the good offices of money put up by the local urban district council opportunities for parents to come in, first of all perhaps to take a look at what is going on, and then perhaps to take part in what is happening in the school.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, mentioned educational priority areas with respect to nursery education, as did other noble Lords. May I say that before the publication of the White Paper we continued the concentration on E.P.A.'s for this under the urban programme. In my opening I sought to outline the way in which we proposed to give priority initially to disadvantaged areas. If I could add a little to it for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in addition to income and housing indices, which we hope to use to see that a fair share, and more than a fair share, is given to deprived areas, we hope, for instance, to use the census for this matter, which may be a useful purpose for what at the time I thought was rather a perplexing document.
In addition, this new programme is, of course, going to release the urban programme resources which for the last few years have been going solely to nursery education, for other purposes. The recent Home Office circular inviting proposals for the next round in the urban programme has contained a number of new ideas, some of them drawn directly from Dr. Halsey's E.P.A. report, and of course there is also going to be a spin-off to some extent for deprived areas in the staffing standards in nursery education. I would just remind the House that when we talked about the 1:13 in these schools (but with 50 per cent. teachers), this is an improvement on the present situation.
1306
I think I am right in saying that it may very well be an improvement on conditions in Wales, where there are more than the usual amount of children under five receiving education, but they are not in nursery schools and classes.
May I say a brief word about the secondary improvement programme. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, my noble friend Lord Butler and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, all referred in different ways to the necessity of trying to see that a child's ability to develop is not prejudiced at an early age, and I entirely understand that view. I ask your Lordships to forgive me if I am a little controversial, but I think it is a shade hard when the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, puts quite the weight that he did put on the size of the programme, for I am reminded that the previous Government ran down their secondary improvements programme from £38 million (which is what was provided by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, in 1955–56) to almost nothing—which, for secondary improvements, is what we inherited.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the last figure? I am sure, because of the way he has put it and the way it will read, that it will indicate that when the present Government took over we were giving nothing. Will he give the figure?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, if my memory serves me aright, the secondary improvements programme which we inherited from the previous Government was £4·5 million at 1972 costs—I think I have got that right—for the two years 1970–71 and 1971–72. In terms of secondary improvements, that is very little indeed.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: But it is better than nothing.
LORD BELSTEAD: It is better than nothing, my Lords, but I am suggesting that £20 million over a two-year period is a very great deal better. All I am saying is that it is only fair to put both sides of the matter. Before I leave this point, I should just like to say—and my noble friend Lord Butler referred to this point—that if one is reorganising secondary schools one must try to do it properly; and he referred to "botched-up" schools. What we are hoping—and we have made this absolutely clear by

1307
the announcement of the programme; which, incidentally, includes the Thomas Calton School in Southwark—is to provide money so that schools which are being reorganised can be reorganised properly and not on split sites.
May I say a brief word about the teacher-supply targets, because the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked me a direct question about the size of classes; and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred to this point as well. In terms of pupil-teacher ratio, the planned increase to 510,000 teachers by 1981 will mean a more rapid reduction than was achieved during the 1960s—that is, in P.T.R. Although this improvement cannot be linked directly to the size of classes, because head teachers really must be free to deploy staff as they think best, none the less, as the proportion of oversize classes—that is those of over 40 children—in primary schools fell from 11 per cent. to 2½ per cent. in the five years up to last year, I think it is fair for me to claim that there can be little doubt that under the White Paper's policies this trend will continue.
May I turn to teacher training? Both the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London drew attention to the future of the colleges. We have been encouraged this afternoon to remove the anxiety in the colleges by acting quickly, so that each college can know its future as soon as possible. Then the right reverend Prelate said that we must not act too quickly, because we might prejudice the position of some of them. We propose to try to move with all deliberate speed. The fact of the matter is that in our recent circular, to which I referred, we have asked L.E.A.s to let us know in a year from now what plans they propose for the future of their colleges. What is true—and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred to this—is that we have said that we should like to have by November 1 an interim report on the progress which might be made in colleges. What I submit to your Lordships is that this represents a happy mean between indecent haste and lack of will.
I should like to assure noble Lords —and many of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Swinton, the right
1308
reverend Prelate, my noble friend Lord Butler and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, were interested in this subject —that the Government share the concern expressed in this House to-day about the future of the colleges of education. We recognise how splendidly they have risen to the demands that have been made on them over the last ten years to boost—if I may use that word—the supply of teachers. They have, moreover, succeeded in their task without any reduction in the quality of their output. But I must remind the House of this point. It has long been the wish of many of them to take a fuller place in the family of higher institutions, and for this the White Paper provides. What we are most anxious to see is that, by one of the ways indicated in the White Paper, as many as possible of the colleges should reach this fulfilment.
It is true that there is no general prescription by which their future can be settled—the circumstances of each must be examined carefully, individually and sympathetically. In a recent circular to the authorities my right honourable friend made clear the importance of taking the colleges themselves into close consultation and, as I sought to make clear in my opening, the Government are intending exactly this in respect of the voluntary colleges, also. I particularly wanted to say that, with the right reverend Prelate here to-day. My noble friend Lord Butler specifically asked me about the protection of the position of staffs. The Department are in close touch with the Association of Teachers in Colleges land Departments of Education about the need to remove anxieties affecting the future of individual members of staffs.
May I now turn to universities? I listened to the remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, with great attention, and I am grateful to him for his commendation of the White Paper. Moreover, I am sure that the teaching profession will be grateful to him, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who referred to this subject, for emphasising that, however, devoted they are, teachers cannot and should not be expected to make good the results of cultural and physical deprivation entirely by themselves. This is a task which must rest on the conscience of our society as a whole. I was sorry only that the noble Lord, Lord Annan—and perhaps I may

1309
be forgiven for saying this in his absence —made a charge which I do not think has justice in it, that the Open University is, as he put it, despised by the Department of Education. In fact there is no shred of evidence for that remark. Indeed, the White Paper makes two pretty friendly references to the Open University.
My Lords, may I just pick up one other point (because I think this went home to your Lordships) about the training and re-training of lecturers and staff in higher education? The U.G.C. has made a special allocation of funds to universities to encourage schemes for training university staff, I think for some years now. The noble Lords, Lord Robbins, Lord Bowden and others raised the question of cost-benefit in our educational system to-day. How far are our schools and our higher education institutions fulfilling the hopes that, over the years, we have placed in them? How far are they contributing to the quality of life? How far are they helping our young people to heal the breach between scientists and humanists? I think that this evening I can only say that I hope the penetrating questions which were posed by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, will pierce the consciences of those who teach in universities, colleges and schools, and persuade them to question themselves about what the noble Lord described as "the ideology of early specialisation", and how it can be modified. My Lords, I have also heard it described as "the student trap". I do not think the House would expect me to follow the noble Lord in what he said but I assure him that I will ask my right honourable friend (who, after all, is responsible for examinations, with the advice of the Schools Council) to look very carefully at the speech that the noble Lord made.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, asked me about drop-out rates for post-graduates. It is almost impossible, I think, to give the noble Lord an answer about polytechnics, because really the time is too soon. When one thinks that until only a little while ago polytechnics were still being designated, I think the noble Lord will perhaps acquit me of being slipshod in saying that we do not have statistics on this matter. For post-graduate award-holders who do not complete their courses
1310
I have a figure here, which has been used, I think, by the Science Research Council, of 5 to 7 per cent. not proceeding beyond year one, and a further 5 to 7 per cent. not completing their courses. I must also, I think, not give my noble friend entire satisfaction about the costs of polytechnic and university undergraduates, and how they compare. Really, one difficulty—just to take a major point —is that about 10 per cent. of the students in the polytechnics are following non-advanced courses. I assure my noble friend that I will look at this point again, and if I can find him a suitable and satisfactory statistic then, if my noble friend will allow me to do so, I will write to him.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Balerno and the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, raised important questions about residential accommodation for students. On this question, the Government consider—and this is referred to in the White Paper, in paragraphs 127 to 128—that many more residential places should be provided, but that at the same time more students should be encouraged to live at home. May I just point out to my noble friend Lord Blake that, for instance, only about 16 per cent. of university students at present live at home, compared with 40 per cent. before the war. We are worried because the percentage change is so marked. In fact, so far as universities are concerned many more residential places are being provided. Some 11,000 places will be started in 1974–75, giving a total of about 130,000 places in 1975–76; and, altogether, residential places will be provided for some two-thirds of the 70,000 extra students expected in the 1972–77 quinquennium. My Lords, these places will be financed mainly from loans raised by the universities from private sources, and supplemented by grants through the University Grants Committee up to 25 per cent. of the total cost. Already many places have been successfully provided by these means. My Lords, I have listened with sympathy to what my noble friend Lord Balerno has said, but if the University Grants Committee consider that these arrangements should be changed then it is up to the Committee to make proposals to the Department.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, also asked me a question about the percentage —and he was kind enough to say that he

1311
approved of the percentage—of 18-yearolds (22 per cent.) who will find a place, so we plan, in an institution of higher education by 1981. The noble Lord asked how this would compare with the United States of America. I am giving him not, I think, an official answer, but I believe I am right in saying that 40 per cent. of the relevant age group is often quoted for the U.S.A. But, of course, this takes no account of length or standard of courses, or rate of wastage, though I have heard that in the United States the rate of wastage or drop-out is said to be three or four times that in Great Britain.
If I may just bring my remarks to a close, as I said in my opening speech the universities will be growing rapidly in the next five years, and it is only reasonable, I think, to look for some economies of scale—and here I am answering my noble friend Lord Blake. I am sorry, my Lords: there are two other features, I think, of the quinquennial settlement which should also help to bring costs down; namely, the movement from science to arts and the slower rate of expansion of post-graduate study, of which incidentally, my noble friend expressed approval. Against this background, I maintain that the universities ought not to find it as hard as some noble Lords have suggested to manage on a recurrent grant per student only 2 per cent. below the comparable figure for the last year of the previous quinquennium.
May I just say to my noble friend Lord Balerno about Heriot-Watt University that of course he realises that my right honourable friend is responsible for universities throughout Great Britan but the specific question of special grants must come under the University Grants Committee, and the specific question of special grants for working on twin sites is likewise a matter for the U.G.C. I believe I am right in saying that the noble Lord is already in touch with the U.G.C. about this.
I want only to raise one last matter and it is the question which many of your Lordships have brought up about what is not in the White Paper. My Lords, I make no complaint about this. A number of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, have mentioned the education of young
1312
people between 16 and 19; there has been the development of community education, which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised and the future of adult education, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, raised. All of these subjects, of course, are in no way unimportant, but they have not found their place in this particular statement of policy because this was not what the particular statement of policy was about. Because my noble friend, as well as other noble Lords, particularly asked me about the 16-to 19-year-olds, may I say that I believe that participation in part-time F.E. could benefit many more young people, and indirectly their employers. My right honourable friend would like to see a great many more young people released, and it is her policy that part-time F.E. should be available, without compulsion though, for all young people who want to receive and are able to benefit from it. With this in mind she has mounted a very considerable programme of nearly £36 million which starts in 1973 to 1975, and has approved better accommodation standards in polytechnics and other colleges of further education which come into effect absolutely next month.
My Lords, I said at the opening of this debate that we have three broad aims—the extension of the span in education, an improvement in the quality of the service, and a greater diversity of provision. Because of the nature of our education service, which depends upon partnership, my right honourable friend has provided the framework to achieve those aims which rests on five particular sectors of the White Paper. May I thank your Lordships for examining these to-day, and may I apologise to various noble Lords whose questions I have not been able to answer. In some of these we are taking an initiative, such as the initiative in nursery education, which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, directed education to do thirty years ago. In others we are building on previous work, as in school buildings; in yet others, as in higher education, we are, through existing institutions, aiming for further expansion and even greater diversity, in partnership with the rest of the educational service. These are the objectives which we shall seek to achieve.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DOCKS AND HARBOURS (VALUATION) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1973
9.17 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) (Amendment) Order 1973, be approved. In commending this Order to the House, the first point I wish to emphasise is that it is an amending Order. In this Order we are not laying down for the first time a completely new method of rating docks and harbours. We did that in the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order, 1971, which Parliament approved a couple of years ago. That was the time when the major step was taken. I suggest therefore that there is no need at this stage to go over again the reason for making the change to a formula method for assessing docks and harbours for rates. But as this Order needs to be read with the 1971 Order I shall have to refer to some of the features of that Order.
What that 1971 Order did, in brief, was to substitute for assessments derived under ordinary rating law a percentage— 4 per cent.—of the gross receipts after receipts in respect of cargo handing have been deducted from the total. It is also appropriate to mention at this point that because the change was quite a radical one, there were transitional provisions which secured that ports whose rateable values would change substantially as a result of the formula would move to their new levels, either up or down, over a period of up to five years. At the time the 1971 Order was made it was apparent that the percentage would need to be reviewed in 1973 because of the revaluation; it was not possible to provide then for a different percentage to apply from 1973 because it was desirable that the figure should be fixed in relation to the most up-to-date information possible. And we undertook to carry out such a review. So the main purpose of this amending Order now before the House is to make the necessary change in the percentage to take account of revaluation. What we have done is to increase the percentage from 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. of what we call "relevant receipts". Anticipating a little, I might say here that relevant receipt will not mean quite the same thing in 1973–74 as it has done over the last
1314
couple of years, if Parliament approves the new Order.
The immediate question that might well be asked is why the percentage changes only from 4 per cent. to 6 per cent. In 1973 rateable values generally are moving on average to about 2½ times their previous figure. Should not, therefore, the 4 per cent. also be multiplied by 2½ to produce 10 per cent. instead of the 6 per cent. for which we have provided? The answer to this question lies within the technicalities of the rating system, but as it is such an important one, I hope the House will forgive me if I devote a few moments to it. Most properties provided they are not altered keep the same rateable value throughout the period of validity of a valuation list. A house which had a rateable value of £100 in 1963 will still have that rateable value in 1972. But from April 1, 1973 it will, typically, go up to £250. If we can assume an identical house in identical circumstances being built in 1970, it would also have been given a rateable value of £100, and whatever the rental value would have been in 1970, its rateable value would have been based on the level of values when the 1963 list was compiled—that is, in 1962 or there-abouts—even though it was not in existence at that time. That house would also go up to £250 from April 1. In the technical jargon of rating, we refer to this valuation of properties on the level of values obtaining just before the list comes into operation as valuation according to the "tone of the list".
But there is an important exception to this rule; it does not apply to assessments determined in accordance with what is called "the profits method"; and until 1971, statutory docks and harbours were valued according to the profits method. Properties subject to this method of valuation are rateable on the profits each year, with no allowance for movements in values, either of property or of money.
What this means in the present case is that when we changed over to a formula method of assessment of docks and harbours in 1971, the 4 per cent. was determined in relation to money values at that time and not on money values or on property values in 1963. This means that, other things being equal, a

1315
much smaller relative rise in assessments for ports would now be appropriate. And if the profits method had continued to apply to the ports the revaluation would have produced, other things being equal, a much smaller change than the 2½ multiplier for property in general.
Here, I must say that nobody to-day is in a position to give an exact percentage which would be appropriate. No objective measure of the appropriate liability for docks and harbours exists and, moreover, the exercises which have been done to arrive at the 6 per cent. have depended on estimates for the future which time may falsify. In this sort of situation one must accept that the 6 per cent. is a round figure. But I can say that it was arrived at after a thorough study of the estimates and other data put forward, and these were the subject of comments and discussion. In all the circumstances 6 per cent. seems to be about right. Another important provision in the Order also relates to the percentage of receipts. Although we have provided for 6 per cent. in 1973–74, we have provided that any receipts in excess of those in 1973–74 should carry a percentage of only 4.
The purpose of this provision is to give some measure of stability for clocks and harbours. This will mean that, where the money value of receipts goes up both on account of increased business and on account of inflation, an allowance will be made for the inflationary element, unlike the position at present. Of course, I accept that in practice the inflationary element might be more or less than this allows for and the situation will vary from port to port. But, bearing in mind the vigorous steps which the Government are taking to counter inflation, we do not think that a lower percentage for the excess would be appropriate.
The other provisions in the Order are of less importance. One consequential to revaluation and the alterations in the percentages, is that we have had to make appropriate changes in the transitional provisions. They look, and are, rather complicated, but I can assure the House that they have been devised so as to leave ports in the same position on the ladder as before the changes; but, of course, the rungs have become more
1316
widely spaced. So far as the remainder of the Order is concerned, we have thought it right to use the opportunity presented by the Order of making minor improvements to the formula which experience suggests are desirable. To make for greater fairness between ports there are some other exclusions from gross receipts, in addition, that is, from receipts for cargo handling. Investment income, receipts for pilotage and rents of let out properties (subject to a limit) are now to be excluded. And for the sake of greater convenience for a large number of ports, we have introduced a choice of accountancy year for the purpose of determining the amount of relevant receipts. My Lords, I have now covered, if only briefly, the points of substance in this rather technical Order. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) (Amendment) Order 1973, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
9.27 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, out of consideration for the noble Lords who are concerned with the next business, and also out of consideration for the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who, I understand, is trying to catch a train to the North, I will endeavour to be brief, but I am afraid that we cannot let this Order go through without any discussion at all because we have received very emphatic objections to it in its present form from the local authority associations most closely concerned; namely, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils Association. In the normal way, my noble friend Lord Champion would have been dealing with the matter, and I must admit that I am in no sense an expert on it, but my noble friend, unfortunately, is committed elsewhere and cannot be present.
I must say that we have had most emphatic objections on behalf of these associations to the form the Order has taken, and they have expressed their dissatisfaction with the outcome of the consultations they had with the Department. The burden of their dissatisfaction, or the main point—I will mention one or two minor points in a moment—is that in their opinion and according to their estimates the formula proposed in the

1317
Order will mean that the ports and harbours undertakings concerned, the statutory ports and harbours, will be paying a considerably lower sum in rates next year under the new formula compared with what they have been paying hitherto. According to these calculations, under the 1971 arrangements—and, as the noble Lord properly said, the Order we have before us is to amend that arrangement—the rates were based, in very round terms, on a total rateable value of something in excess of £3 million. If one takes the proposals in the Order, as I understand it the total rateable value on which the rates will be levied will be, in round terms, about £4½ million; whereas the local authority associations reckon that the rateable value should be in the region of £7 million. They say, giving their calculations (needless to say, my Lords, I do not pretend to have made these calculations myself) that there will be a reduction in the total rate burden on the ports and harbours of about 40 per cent. under the new dispensations. If these calculations are correct, then it requires some further explanation than that given to us so far by the noble Lord.
I gather that the proposals of the Government in relation to the new valuations means that in general terms the domestic hereditaments will have an average increase of rate burden in the coming period of around 1·8 per cent.—in other words, a quite inconsiderable figure; and one is well aware that averages conceal wide variations of rates between different properties—but that in the industrial and commercial field there will be some slight reduction on the average of about 1·9 per cent. Even within the averages, which, as I say, can cover wide variations as to actual figures for particular properties, I think one must agree that if there is any validity in this calculation of a reduction of some 40 per cent. under the new arrangements, this is quite remarkable. With great respect to the noble Lord, I do not feel that the explanation he has so far given to the House is adequate to explain away this difference. For that reason, I think we are entirely justified in raising the matter.
I am told by the spokesman for the local authority associations that in 1971 the local authorities were not entirely satis-
1318
fied with the formula of 4 per cent. then proposed, and that at that time they suggested that 6 per cent. would have been a more equitable one. It is partly for that reason that they are now saying, under the new arrangements, that it should be 10 per cent. rather than the 6 per cent. proposed by the Government. I do not pretend for one moment, because rating finance is not one of my subjects, that I can go into further detail on that, but I feel it is only right to put before the House the objections that we have received.
There are some other objections to the formula, in so far as the definition of relevant receipts is concerned. Frankly, I cannot judge on the merits of this, but again I think one should make public the objections which have been made. It is suggested that the complete omission of receipts from cargo handling, in particular, is not a fair basis for these computations, because with containerisation, roll on-roll off, and so on, there is a considerable effect on the revenues of some of the ports, and if one is doing this on a formula basis and not on the basis of the value of the property, then it appears to the Local Authorities Association that there are certain elements in the definition of relevant receipts which they would wish to contest.
We are in some difficulty because the Order before us now is due to come into force in three days' time. In other circumstances I think one would have asked the Government to withdraw the Order to-night and to bring it back to the House, possibly amended in some form. Well, we are not unreasonable about this at this late hour, and I do not propose to divide the House. I think we are fairly evenly matched, but I recognise that this would not be practicable. Nevertheless, I think it is unfortunate that where there is a matter of contention, and the Local Authority Associations were not satisfied with the consultations and made this plain, we should be put in a situation where we have an Order that is to come into force on April 1, and there is no margin of time for reconsideration. As the noble Lord rightly said, this formula method for the statutory docks and harbours came in fairly recently. It has not been working for long. It has not been regarded by the local authorities as entirely satisfactory. But, in particular, I

1319
think if there is any validity in the calculations which have been given of this 40 per cent. reduction in the likely payment of rates, we should have some explanation.
9.35 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it is very hard, as I think I said, to give an explanation, because what we are talking about—and I emphasised this—is what is in our opinion the best possible available information based on estimates. The various bodies involved took ten years before we could get the 1971 Order agreed to. These things are never easy, and one must accept that the Association of Municipal Corporations are a party with a vested interest in this matter, putting the best possible case for themselves. I understand that. Equally, the Ports and Harbour Authorities emphasise even now that they regard themselves as paying too much. We have to take into account what is going to be a balance. I made it clear that it would have been very unfair to use the multiplier of two and a half for the docks. If that had been based on 1962 figures, which all the rest of the country are based on, I would accept that the noble Baroness and the municipal corporations had a point.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He will appreciate that the 1971 arrangement, as I understand it, was not in any way for an increase of rates to be paid at that time; it was for a redistribution of responsibility for rates as between the various undertakings. By the previous method, the profit method, of computing the rateable value one had certain docks which had a nil assessment because they made no profits. It did not mean to say that they did not have considerable buildings and other installations. Therefore the basis of the 1971 arrangement was not that you increased the rates of the 1962 period, but you simply divided them out on a different basis between the various establishments concerned. That was, in a way, a device for a more equitable distribution of the total. It was not for an increase in the total at that time.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the 1971 Order was based on receipts at that time. If you take the receipts as being the figure on which your rateable value is to be based, and inflation has gone on from 1962 to 1971, to that extent the rateable values of the ports and harbours were that amount higher than the rateable value of the rest of the country.
We are conscious that neither the ports nor the local authorities associations are satisfied with the effect of this amending Order. Both sides are dissatisfied, and both parties would agree that amendment is desirable. Suppose we did not move the Order, what would happen? The harbours and ports next year would pay only 4 per cent. There is no guarantee that another Order would be brought in. This is an Order to bring up to date what we feel is fair between the two parties.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again. The poundage is going down all over the country because of the revaluation; therefore they are going to pay in total 40 per cent. less in actual rates.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will read what I said, she will see that the re-rating was based on increased revenue in 1971 and she will see that there is a point there. The ports feel that they will be paying too much as a result; the local authorities associations believe, just as sincerely, that the ports will be making an inadequate contribution to local revenues. As I have tried to indicate, a final demonstration one way or the other is not possible on the information available. I am willing to give this undertaking: that if this experience or further information of any kind should subsequently indicate that the Order is producing too high or too low an assessment for docks and harbours generally, we shall be willing to undertake a further review of the formula. With those few words —and I think a fair attitude on behalf of Her Majesty's Government—I hope your Lordships will approve the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL [H.L.]
9.40 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1 [Rehabilitated persons and spent convictions]:
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert the following new subsection—
"(2) The payment in full of any fine or other sum ordered to be paid by any court by way of sentence in criminal proceedings shall, notwithstanding that the payment was not made within the time, or any further time, allowed by the court, be deemed for the purposes of the last preceding subsection to have been a compliance with the sentence if either—

(a) such payment was made in full before the commencement of this Act, or

(b) the court has certified that it is satisfied that the sentence should be deemed to have been duly complied with notwith-standing the delay in making the payment,

but in the latter case two years shall be added to the rehabilitation period prescribed in section 3(1) below."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises from one which was made by my noble and learned friend on the Report stage and which had the effect of ensuring that any individual who has been convicted but has not paid in full before the commencement of this Act shall, as I understand it, be deemed to have completed that sentence, notwith-standing that the payment was not made within the time (or any further time) allowed by the court. I may not have fully represented the effect of the Amendment, but I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who accepted that particular Amendment, and my noble and learned friend, both know what the effect is.
When my noble and learned friend moved the Amendment, which I supported and which took care of the past, I none the less objected—and my noble and learned friend referred to my use of the word "draconian". The effect of the Amendment was that an individual who, for one reason or another, has not com-
1322
plied with the sentence (that is, has not paid a fine) can never have his conviction regarded as spent. My noble and learned friend argued that courts were reasonable and that it is possible to apply for an extension; but some people, for one reason or another, may not have paid a fine. It seems to me wrong that if we are prepared to allow convictions for much more serious offences than disrespect to the court—though I am not minimising the objectionable nature of a failure to comply with an order of the court in the matter of a fine or other payment by way of sentence in criminal proceedings—to be spent it should be allowed also in these cases. But as the Bill stands these convictions can never be spent, however minor the offence.
Therefore I have put down an Amendment the effect of which is that if in due course these people do fulfil the requirements of the court and pay their fine, so that the sentence is fulfilled by payment, after the period established in Clause 2—that is, the period during which a conviction will stand and will not be regarded as spent—with the addition of another two years (which I admit is a figure plucked out of the air but which nevertheless seems to be appropriate) it will be possible for the conviction to be spent in accordance with the purposes of this Act. I am strongly in support of the purposes of this particular Bill though, like the noble Viscount, I have had some anxieties about certain aspects of the drafting—and we all know that my noble and learned friend and his legal friends have done a superb job in producing this Bill—and I hope that this Amendment will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I have no very strong view about this Amendment. On the one hand, it provides a locus pœnitentiœ for which I think there is a good deal to be said. On the other hand, it may be said that it somewhat complicates the Bill and it is perhaps rather unusual to provide that a court is to certify that it is satisfied about something. I apprehend that both the judge and the clerk of the court might be a little puzzled as to what form the certificate should take (it would presumably be in writing) or what they were to do with it when the judge had signed it, as I suppose he would. But on balance, and

1323
subject to what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross may say, I would advise the House to accept the Amendment, primarily because undoubtedly there will eventually be some people to whom the Bill applies who will not have heard of its provisions before it has been passed. It is unusual to pass legislation on the footing that somebody is to do something before the Bill becomes law, and on those grounds I think there is a case to be made for this locus pœnitentiœ. Therefore, on balance, I would advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I would not wish to discourage the House from doing so, either. I think I have made it plain at various stages of this Bill that I am not altogether enchanted with certificates being issued by the court—at least not necessarily if it is going to be done in the way in which the Bill is now drafted, or indeed in the way that this Amendment would suggest.
With the greatest respect to those who have laboured long and lovingly on this Bill, I think the whole question of machinery in the courts for putting its provisions into action have not been thought through, simply because they could not be by private Members of this House. It is in no sense of criticism that I say that; I simply do not think it is within the powers of the noble and learned Lord to discuss this question with all the people who would be concerned. This sort of certificate suffers from the precise defect outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in addition to which I am not altogether satisfied as to what are the criteria on which the court would be satisfied. I suppose that the money had been paid within a certain period of time, although it does not say so.
I assume that, in essence, whether or not it is drafted correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has attempted to produce a compromise between what is draconian and what is wholly lax. If we are speaking in terms of ideas I think we shall agree with what has been said about the clause; on the exact formula, the exact drafting and exact machinery I think we may well need to have further
1324
thoughts. However, I do not want to suggest that we should not proceed on the basis of this compromise.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I hope my noble and learned friend will not take it amiss if I say that I am more contented that this Amendment should go into the Bill because I am well aware that, despite the splendid labours of everyone, there are still imperfections in the Bill and indeed, even if it is appropriate as drafted, I suspect there may have to be consequential amendments. But at least I think this Amendment gets the particular point into the Bill and, if it should proceed further in another place, or here on a later occasion, it will be possible then to deal with the matter. I understand that the House may be prepared to accept my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Rehabilitation periods]:
9.48 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("two years") and insert ("thirty months").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember that at an earlier stage of the Bill in Clause 3(1)(c) we changed the period from what was then two years to 30 months. I am afraid I omitted to notice that in that event there ought to be an equivalent change at page 3, line 11. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Certificates]:
9.50 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("be treated as spent") and insert ("becomes a spent conviction").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises on Clause 4, and as we are on Clause 4 may I say that the noble and learned Viscount expressed the opinion at the last stage of the Bill that the form of the certificate in the Schedule was not appropriate in the case of a hospital order. That is quite right and it would

1325
not be difficult to draft an alternative form for use in such a case, explaining to the offender that his rehabilitation period was five years from the date of conviction or two years from the ending of the hospital order, whichever was the later. The reason I have not dealt with that, as I might at this point explain, is simply that Clause 4(2) provides that:
"Any such certificate shall—
(a) be in the form set out in the Schedule to this Act or in such other form as the Secretary of State may from time to time by regulation prescribe".
It would be quite easy for the Secretary of State to provide a form applicable to hospital orders The reason I have not done it at this stage of the Bill is that I thought that it was about time that the Secretary of State did a little drafting work. I know that he says he has not got a Parliamentary draftsman; but he has many draftsmen who are quite used to drafting Statutory Instruments and to whom I hope this would be no difficulty. It has struck me that it is a little curious that there is another Private Member's Bill, with which I have been concerned, on which we have just got a Parliamentary draftsman with no difficulty, simply by paying for his services —a distinguished draftsman because he is a former chief draftsman. It is rather odd that a private Member can do that where-as apparently the Government themselves cannot. This particular Amendment on the Order Paper is simply a question of improved drafting, and I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am glad to hear this handsome tribute to the merits of private enterprise from the noble and learned Lord. What I shall do is to draw his remarks to the personal attention of my right honourable friend and suggest that he may set afoot the drafting of the necessary details relative to hospital orders which I think would be fairly difficult and something we would have to consider carefully because of the particular importance which I know that not only my right honourable friend but also everyone else place upon correctly dealing with people who have been subjected to hospital orders; that is not because we wish to be in any way unkind to them, but because in some cases there is the question of the protection of the public which has to be borne in mind.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Evidence of previous convictions]:
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4, which arises because at the Report stage of the Bill the noble and learned Viscount expressed the opinion, at column 697 of the OFFICIAL REPORT that we had got the wrong section of the Social Work (Scotland) Act. As I told him at the time, I had had advice, informal and gratuitously, from a Scottish Parliamentary draftsman. I should have checked the section number myself but I am afraid I did not. It therefore a case of Homer having nodded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("62(3)") and insert ("64(4)").—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 5. This matter was also raised by the noble Viscount, at column 697, at the Report stage because he thought this ought also to apply to the question of the fitness of a teacher. I respectfully agree; hence the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, at end insert ("or section 72 of the Education Act 1944.").—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, this is simply a question of improving the drafting. I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, after ("any") insert ("rehabilitated").—(Lard Gardiner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.56 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 17, leave out ("accruing to him by reason of that conduct or a right") and insert ("or to claim relief founded upon that conduct, or a right or relief").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment may I also speak to Amendment No. 8? This refers to the rather troublesome question that arose of exceptions being made to the Bill for the purpose of civil proceedings. At the moment these exceptions are limited to those claiming a right. It was pointed out to me by the noble

1327
Viscount that there might be people claiming relief, possibly, I suppose, on a counterclaim. I am quite prepared to extend the Bill in the sense for which he contended, but I thought there ought to be some balance, so to say, on the other side, otherwise we were really making the clause too wide. Accordingly Amendment No. 8 adds the words:
", and the court or tribunal is satisfied that justice cannot be done except by the admission of such evidence".
If the two things are taken together, I would suggest to the House that there is a proper balance. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord again has made a valiant effort to meet the point that I raised, and I am very grateful to him. I agree with him that one has to attempt to get the right balance in this particular matter when one is dealing with admissibility of spent convictions in civil proceedings of one sort or another. I do not want to oppose either of these Amendments. I would still remind the House that this whole area of the application to civil law is a very difficult one. I have done my best with the advice I have, and I know that the noble and learned Lord has also done the best with the advice he has. I cannot guarantee that any of us have got it right. Certainly I would not wish to oppose this Amendment. It meets a certain extension of the Bill that I wished to see. The counter-balance the noble and learned Lord has mentioned could have its difficulties in practice, but it is, I would think, workable; therefore, if this is the argument and the balance the noble and learned Lord wishes to see in the Bill, I certainly would not wish to resist it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, at end insert (", and the court or tribunal is satisfied that justice cannot be done except by the admission of such evidence").—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. This is a
1328
point raised by the noble Viscount at the Report stage. I think it is quite right, and I therefore beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, after ("order") insert ("supervision order or care order").—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
In the Schedule:
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 20, leave out ("are not dealt with for") and insert ("do not commit").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as this is the last Amendment may I just mention two points. On page 8 at line 34 Clause 7(7) begins
"Any order pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (4)".
Owing to Amendments carried on the Report stage of the Bill, paragraph (c) became paragraph (d). I think I pointed that out at the time. But this point has not been picked up. I wanted to put down an Amendment to change "(c)" to "(d)", but I was told that it was unnecessary and that it will be seen to and corrected in the next print of the Bill.
The other point I wish to mention is that line 24, on page 9, states:
"(c) that you pay the fine within the time limited by the court or any further time which is allowed".
The word should not really be "limited"; it should be "allowed" in both places. I moved an Amendment at Report stage to leave out the word "limited" and to insert the word "allowed", and that Amendment was carried. But in the Bill it is still "limited", and therefore I wanted to put down an Amendment again, but I was told that as the Amendment had been carried earlier it could not properly be put down again. The powers-that-be would see to it that in the next printing of the Bill the word was corrected. I mention that only for the Record. The last Amendment is, I suggest, obviously right. The Schedule states:
"These conditions are: —

(a) That you are not dealt with for any breach of the probation order".

The point is not whether the person is dealt with for breach of the probation

1329
order, but whether he has committed a breach of the probation order. Accordingly, my Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I did not notice the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, straining at his noble and learned friend on a point of Order on this Amendment, as he did on the previous occasion. All I can say is that on these technicalities we have a new personification of Homer. But, as to the Amendment itself, I certainly would not wish to oppose that, either.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the reason I did not attempt to do so is that I saw the Government Chief Whip here, who I thought might wish to do so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like again, if I may, to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for the great personal interest and care which he has taken in relation to the Bill, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, my noble friend Lord Shackleton, and all those who have shown such great interest in the earlier parts of the Bill. I hope it will now go forward to the other place, and I hope very much that the Government will take this Bill over. We have all been conscious throughout that it is just the sort of Bill which merits the attentions of a Parliamentary draftsman. Having passed its Second Reading, nobody has at any time quarrelled with the principle of the Bill.
It affects about one million people ditectly, some of whom are in middle-age with children and wives whom it affects, and some have fathers and mothers, so I suppose there are something like four million votes in this Bill if one looks at it from that point of view. Naturally, I should not wish anybody to take too Party-political a view about it. All I should like to make plain is that if the Government would like to take it over and take credit for it, I shall have no objection of any kind. I am persuaded that this Bill must become law at some time. We all know the difficulties about Parliamentary time in relation to Private Members' Bills in the other place. Now that we have joined the Common Market, we remain the only Member of the Council of Europe which
1330
has no rehabilitation law. This in itself shows that there is nothing wrong with the principle or something impracticable about it, because every other member of the Council of Europe has already introduced it. I therefore hope very much that the Government will give careful consideration to the question whether in the other House they themselves should take this Bill over. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Gardiner.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble and learned friend on his determination, his ingenuity, his idealism, and the good social principle that is contained in this Bill. I have been interested in it right from the beginning, from the time when the original report from Justice came out. I had at that time, as I still have, some doubts about whether we have solved all the problems. It was quite obvious that in that first report, looking at it from the point of view of an employer who has to administer matters, and indeed to a lesser extent from other public angles, there were difficulties—and those difficulties have been made abundantly clear by the noble Viscount in his various speeches. None the less, the principle is so important that I am sure we are right to let this Bill complete all its stages in this House, and to pass it. It is perhaps a little unusual that we should have gone as far as this. On previous occasions with Private Members' Bills, when I have had to deal with them, we have not gone beyond Second Reading; then there was a wearisome period while the Government, and in particular that very over-burdened office the Home Office, who always get landed with new and complicated bits of legislation, finally got down to dealing with it. Then the Bill reappeared and got picked up in another place.
I would make only two points here, very briefly. The first is that I think my noble friend might still consider whether this is not an appropriate Bill for a Select Committee. He has now taken it through all its stages in this House, and I think it would be an appropriate Bill to send to a Select Committee of this House. I remember now why it is that I have the Sex Discrimination Bill in my hands. In the case of that

1331
Bill, a Select Committee, aided by Sir Noel Hutton and with the resource of being able, one way or another, to call on one of those really first-class ex-Parliamentary counsel, were able to produce a Bill which I hope will be more acceptable. At least it had the virtue of being drafted by a first-class draftsman. It is almost impossible in the case of a Bill of this complication, admirable though we all agree its purposes are, to get it right.
The choice is therefore either for the Government to pick it up at a later stage, or it can perhaps go some way through the Commons, though the prospects for a Bill of this complexity are not very great —certainly there are none in this Session. Or it might go to a Select Committee; or we, as a Parliament, might face up to the fact that we ought to have resources available in the form of Parliamentary draftsmen, as they are available to the Canadian Parliament and as they are available to Congress. This is a matter I do not wish to say anything further about just now. It is not right to press the noble Viscount, who I think has done his best, on this point. This is a matter that one day we might consider; in fact, I hope at not too distant a date. I would ask the noble Viscount and his noble friend to consider this matter with the Leader of the House.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, on that last point, may I say that this is a problem which has beset Parliament for a long time, and I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was himself concerned very much with the problem of Parliamentary counsel when he held the high Office that he did. Alas!, I think neither his efforts nor those of preceding or subsequent Governments have made any great impact on the problem; but we are very well aware of it, and we who have been interested in this Bill are all the sufferers. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has I think very accurately forecast some of the things that might happen to this Bill. It goes to another place. I am grateful for the generosity of the noble and learned Lord in offering it to us, but I simply cannot forecast what my colleagues may feel is the right course to take, though
1332
the generosity of his offer will be passed on to them—I assure him of that.
There are really two things that I want to say about this. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has emphasised that we may very well have not got this measure right. There are certainly details in it which are still wrong. There may be matters which do not necessarily go to the root principle but which affect some fairly substantial subordinate principles which we have not got right, either. I am glad it is thought that the Home Office on this occasion have taken a constructive attitude. We have done our best and I am glad that we have got the Bill to this stage in this House, but it remains, when all is said and done, an amateur effort, if a skilled amateur effort, and what we must do in Government is to reflect on the principle underlying the Bill which has now been very widely discussed. We must look at the attitudes which have been expressed in the balanced debates in this House—and they have been remarkably favourable to the noble and learned Lord and his supporters and we shall take this into account.
We shall have to look at some time at the precise provisions of the Bill as they now stand after all these Amendments. I am sorry if that sounds a little disappointing, but the noble and learned Lord must take comfort in the fact that what he has done will be widely recognised as being not only an idealistic and determined effort but an extraordinarily skilful one in trying to meet all the points which I have raised. My fear is that I have not raised all the points. If I have, I feel certain that the noble and learned Lord would have bent over backwards to meet them, but I still think that submerged in this is a good deal of trouble; there are reefs on which the whole thing could run aground. I am sorry it should be so. I have reserved the Government's position on a number of matters and I do not want to go into this, but we must bear in mind that these matters exist and we must not underestimate the difficulties that still lie ahead.
Having said that, however, I would once again thank the noble and learned Lord for the trouble he has taken to try to meet all my points. It has been a most agreeable exercise to carry out with him and his advisers, and certainly

1333
we shall look with interest to any further progress of this Bill, and we shall not fail to take account of the principle so clearly enunciated in the Divisional Court of Justice and in the Bill and see what we really ought to do about it.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on February 12 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  V.A.T. ON ARTISTS' WORK
  V.A.T. ON ARTISTS' WORK