Sitting of 9 May 1974

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

LORD GLENKINGLAS
The Right Honourable Michael Antony Cristobal Noble, having been created Baron Glenkinglas, of Cairndow in the County of Argyll, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Carrington and the Lord Zuckerman.
LORD GEOFFREY-LLOYD
The Right Honourable Geoffrey William Geoffrey-Lloyd, having been created Baron Geoffrey-Lloyd, of Broomfield in the County of Kent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Crathorne and the Lord Butler of Saffron Walden.

NORTH SEA OIL PIPELINES
3.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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 propose to take any steps to prevent the proliferation of company pipelines on the North Sea bed with corresponding proliferation of coastal terminals; and whether they would support the construction of common-user pipelines.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (LORD BALOGH): My Lords, questions of pipeline development are being considered as part of the current review of licensing policy. A Statement will be made to Parliament as soon as this review is complete. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government fully realise the import-
628
ance of the problems referred to in this Question.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply and desisting from throwing any more bouquets in his direction after last night, may I ask him whether there is any possibility of this matter being dealt with along with the related problems of conservation in the forthcoming Brown Book, of which he disclosed last night he had some knowledge?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I do not think the long-term problem can really be embodied in a booklet or report or Statement to Parliament which deals with the developments of the last year in regard to oil production. However, it should be possible to give some indication of how the decisions are going—perhaps not quite so quickly as the publication of the Brown Book, but at a very early date.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind the problem not only of collecting the oil but of the natural gas, which is associated with the increasing number of oil finds in the far northern waters, and the desirability of a pipeline for that purpose?
LORD BALOGH: Yes, my Lords.

OFF-SHORE PLATFORM SITES
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper and at the same time beg leave of the House to declare an interest in that I advise one of the companies that is interested in finding sites of this kind.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they will present to Parliament a Bill to enable compulsory purchase of the sites needed for off-shore platform construction other than those now before a public local inquiry.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, we are actively considering what measures may be needed to ensure that the exploitation of our off-shore petroleum resources brings the maximum benefits to the people of this country. The case for

629
legislation on the lines proposed continues to be under examination but no decision has yet been reached.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, will he take it from me that this Question was tabled before we knew about last night's debate? In view of the inadequacy of the answer on this point then I felt it worth while to keep the Question on the Order Paper, and I ask him to accept my thanks for his reply.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for this opportunity of answering a second Question from him, I can assure him that my noble friend will not make a Statement before the Drumbuie Inquiry is ended.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, will the noble Lord say in rather more definite terms than did his noble colleague Lord Hughes last night whether the Government's decision not to proceed with legislation to acquire urgently needed coastal sites will or will not result in delay in producing the required number of platforms, and hence in producing the oil?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, as the noble Lord might have heard last night, we have to balance environmental and conservation interests with the interests of production. If we did not do that great hostility might be aroused which eventually would result in much greater damage.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, while acknowledging the noble Lord's balancing act, can he answer the question as to whether or not, as a result of the Government's decision not to continue on the time scale that the previous Government had with this Bill, there will be delay in bringing the oil ashore?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, no one can be sure of that.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Scottish Council's Study published yesterday foresees the need, on the basis of present discoveries alone, for somewhere between 45 and 65 platforms by the year 1981, and suggests that this figure is most unlikely to be met, partly on account of a dearth of suitable construction sites? If he is so aware, does he agree with this assessment?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, the experts disagree in regard to this question. When the last Government were in Office we heard equivocal statements about the number needed and the production which is expected. I do not think it is for the noble Lord who was responsible for Scottish affairs in this connection to make such remarks.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, has entered the Scottish field, will he tell us when we can expect the promised summary from the Scottish Office of possible coastal sites that would be suitable for the construction of gravity platforms? He will know from his close liaison with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that there is something "cooking" in this respect. Can he tell us when we may expect to see it published?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I think the noble Earl might put down a Question in that regard.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us who are the experts who disagree with the expertise expressed by my noble friend Lord Polwarth?
LORD BALOGH: No, my Lords.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his courtesy, may I ask him whether he will give any reason for not being able to give an answer to that question?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, it is because I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in his excellent tutorial to me in not saying anything of which the Department does not approve.

STOCKTON RAILWAY COMMEMORATIVE STAMP
3.18 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will suggest to the Post Office, for appropriate consideration, the issue of a commemorative stamp

631
on September 27, 1975, to mark the 150th anniversary of the world's first steam passenger railway from Stockton to Darlington on September 27, 1825.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am advised that this suggestion has already been put to the Post Office and I am sure it will receive careful consideration.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, as a Freeman of Stockton, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that if the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Crook, is carried out it will give great pleasure to the citizens of Stockton and of Darlington?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that the Post Office will note that.

TAXI FARES AND TIPPING
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the new scale of fares for London taxi-cabs was agreed on the basis of an expectation that "tipping" would continue, or whether it was fixed on the basis that statutory right should take the place of voluntary gratuities.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, the new fares scale assumed no change in the practice of tipping.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that almost every taxi driver—certainly every taxi driver whom I have ever engaged—, regards a tip as part of the bargain. Is it not just as well to accept that as a fact, even though taxis are so expensive that many of us find it difficult to afford one at all?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, this matter has been looked at once or twice, as the noble Lord will be aware, but I do not think that at the moment there is any proposal to change the existing situation.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a Statement on the termination of the recent strike of the A.U.E.W.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Hughes will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30. This will be followed by a Statement by my noble friend Lord Jacques on bread subsidies.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [H.L.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Beswick, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision concerning oil pollution by ships and related matters; to give power to protect shipping and trading interests against foreign action concerning or affecting carriage of goods by sea; to make provision relating to the operation of submersible apparatus; to alter the constitution of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses; and to amend certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 relating to offences committed by seamen. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Baronesss Llewelvn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing

633
Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.23 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill deals with a subject which is reasonably fresh in our minds, for it is only a little over three months since this House gave a Second Reading to a Bill on the same subject which was introduced by the previous Administration. That Bill made no further progress because of the Dissolution of Parliament. In the course of the Second Reading of the earlier Bill, I indicated to your Lordships that I welcomed it as far as it went.
My Lords, the Bill which we have before us to-day is, to a considerable extent, based on that earlier Bill, with the important difference that it goes a good deal further in the direction of getting rid of feuduties completely. The main change, which will be found in Clause 5, is the inclusion of the provision for compulsory redemption of feuduty at the first sale of property after the commencement of the Act. The obligation to redeem the feuduty will rest on the seller of the property, as is only fair since he will be getting the money from the sale. Redemption is to be effected by the payment to the superior of a sum of money, calculated by reference to the price of 2½ per cent. Consols, which will produce an income equivalent to the feuduty if approximately invested at current interest rates. This formula, which is the same as that contained in the previous Bill for the optional redemption of feuduties will, we think, be fair to both parties that is, both to the proprietor of the land and to the superior.
This is a major addition to the Bill and will, by itself, greatly hasten the disappearance of feuduties, as I understand that house properties in Scotland are now changing hands on average once
634
every seven or eight years. This is a change which was urged upon the previous Administration by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and others, and your Lordships will recollect that I joined with them in advocating that particular provision. So it presents no problem to me to have it included in the Bill at this time. I hope that it will be generally welcomed by your Lordships.
The second important difference between this Bill and that of the previous Administration is that the present Bill seeks to prohibit new feuduties completely, and to abolish completely existing feuduties on redemption. Your Lordships will recall that the previous Bill would, in both cases, have permitted, or would have left in being, a nominal feuduty of one penny if asked. This was done, as I understand it, on the assumption that retention of a nominal feuduty was necessary in order to preserve the feudal relationship between the proprietor of land and the superior. The present Government accept that, primarily for reasons connected with the right to enforce land conditions, this relationship will have to be kept for an interim period until we are able to bring forward further legislation to wind up the feudal system entirely. However, we were not attracted by the "feudal fiction" of the nominal feuduty which seemed to us a needless preservation of an archaic remnant which might conceivably give rise to difficulty and misunderstanding. Therefore, we have drafted the appropriate clauses of the Bill in such a way that a new feu, or a feu in respect of which the feuduty has been redeemed, will still have effect for all purposes other than the payment of feuduty exactly as if a feuduty were in fact being paid. With your Lordships' permission, I shall now go rather quickly through the Bill, touching on some of the main provisions.
My Lords, Clause 1 contains the central provision that no new feuduties are to be created. As I have already indicated, it will still be permissible to feu land, rather than selling it by outright disposition—for example, in order to create feudal land conditions—hut there is to be no feuduty of even a nominal amount. Clause 2 follows on from this provision by extending the prohibition of new feuduties to all other comparable payments from land. Clause 4 contains the

635
important provision permitting any proprietor, entirely at his own option, to redeem his feuduty at any term of Whit Sunday or Martinmas by paying the appropriate amount of redemption money calculated as I have explained already, to the superior.
This clause is on substantially the same lines as the corresponding provision in the earlier Bill, but there is one change to which I should draw your Lordships' attention. It will be recalled that some disquiet was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and indeed, myself, about the fact that under the previous Bill it would have been necessary for the superior to grant a formal receipt and discharge in respect of the voluntary redemption of a feuduty, instead of a simple form of receipt. This probably would have involved the employment of a lawyer, no doubt at considerable expense. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, was sympathetic on this point and had already put down an Amendment to meet it at the time when the earlier Bill was lost. The present Bill provides that in every case there will be a simple form of receipt only. This is achieved by subsection (6) of Clause 4, as read with Form 2 of Schedule 1, Clause 5 contains the major new provision of which I have already spoken, with regard to compulsory redemption of feuduty and other similar payments on a sale of property. The remaining parts of the Bill are substantially in the same form as in the earlier version, and I propose, therefore, to be brief.
My Lords, Part II contains the other major provision of the Bill; namely, the prohibition—subject to certain strictly limited exceptions—of future long residential leases; that is to say, of residential leases with a term which may extend to more than 20 years. This is something to which the present Government, like their predecessors, attach particular importance. In a White Paper published by the previous Labour Government in July, 1969, Land Tenure in Scotland—a Plan for Reform, we included as one of our cardinal points the words:
"The leasing of land for the purpose of building dwelling-houses will only be allowed in special circumstances and subject to the most stringent safeguards."
We set out in some detail the social and other difficulties to which long residential
636
leasehold can give rise. Moreover, it is essential to introduce now this prohibition of long residential leases, not simply on the very real social grounds which exist, but also because if it were not done, long residential leasehold could be an obvious means of evading the prohibition of feuduty. Ordinary local authority letting will not, of course, be in any way affected. Long residential leasehold is not at present common in Scotland, and we do not think that it should be allowed to become so. As I have indicated, this Part of the present Bill is on precisely the same lines as the earlier Bill, and I hope, therefore, that it will have the strong support of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and his colleagues.
Part III of the Bill is again on the same lines as the corresponding Part of the earlier Bill. Suffice it perhaps to say that some of the clauses are designed to cut out possible ways of getting round the main provisions of the earlier Parts of the Bill; for example, Clause 10, which prevents the use of a heritable security over a house as a way of imposing a payment as a substitute for feuduty, and Clause 11, which ensures that rights of redemption and reversion cannot be used as a way round the prohibition on long residential leases. Other clauses in Part III bring about certain technical changes in the law, relating mainly to leases; for example Clause 15, which deals with a point which was brought to notice by the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Society of Scotland, by recognising competence of the common commercial practice known as the "interposed lease".
Part IV is largely formal. Perhaps I should draw your Lordships' attention, however, to subsection (2) of Clause 21 under which the Bill will come into operation on September 1, 1974. This will ensure that the provisions of Part I, in particular—that is, those dealing with the prohibition of future feuduties and with the redemption of existing feuduties—come into effect as soon as possible. It will for example, mean that a proprietor will be able to opt to redeem his feuduty at Martinmas of this year.
If I may sum up, the main purposes of this Bill are: first, to prohibit comletely the creation of new feuduties; secondly, to give proprietors the right to redeem completely their existing feuduties

637
on statutory terms; thirdly, to provide for the compulsory redemption of feuduty on the first sale of a property; fourthly, to prohibit the future creation of residential leases for a term of more than 20 years; and fifthly, to deal with various ancillary matters, including changes in the law relating to the registration of leases.
The Bill represents the second stage in the Labour Government's overall programme of land tenure reform, which was adumbrated in the 1969 White Paper to which I have referred, and the first stage of which was carried out in the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970. This Bill will effectively deal with feuduties. There remains the other very important and very complex aspect of the future of land conditions, and we shall be giving further thought to this before we come forward with firm proposals. But it is the Government's firm intention to move on, as soon as may be practicable, to complete abolition of the feudal system as such. I commend the Bill to your Lordships as a valuable and long overdue step forward, but it is only another step forward. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Hughes.)
3.33 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON, My Lords, I think we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his extreme brevity and for managing to introduce this Bill in only 10 minutes. As he said, it is very similar to the one we fathered in January, and that fact will obviate my having to go over all the points which he and my noble friend Lord Polwarth covered earlier. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, there are still one or two points which are different from what we did in the past, and in this Second Reading speech I want to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to them.
When it was decided to remove the burden of feuduties from new grants of land which were in feu we felt when we were in office that it was essential to preserve the form of feudal holding. To do this we felt that a minimum rate of feuduty should technically be payable, and in this Bill put forward by us such duty in any new deed was to be set at a rate of one penny. This was a technicality and the Bill provided that the one
638
penny should be payable only if asked for. It did, however, preserve the form, in that the element of continuous payment was retained. In this way the normal feudal relationship continued until such time as the system as a whole was abolished.
The Bill which we are now looking at makes one major change by making it statutory that no new deed can impose feuduty at all. In normal circumstances, this would have the effect that the feudal relationship could not exist and in the case of previous deeds could now be ended entirely. This was not our intention when we were in Government, and I think it is probably not the intention of the present Government. To get around the difficulty which they have created in this respect, they have resorted to what one must call a legal fiction by saying in the same clause that
"… a deed executed after"
the commencement of this Act
"which contains a grant of land in feu shall have effect otherwise as if the grant were subject to a feuduty."
In effect, what the Government are doing is pretending that they have not done what they have in fact done. Legal fictions may be acceptable in certain legal systems, but they are normally deprecated in the law of Scotland. By creating pretences of this sort I believe we may be creating a recipe for confusion in the future. I would ask the noble Lord to consider seriously the potentially damaging effect that such a course of action could have on the whole of land tenure in Scotland. I do not want to say any more about this Bill, because I think I have drawn attention to our chief worry on this point.

A.U.E.W. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
3.36 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave Notice of a Question which it is now appropriate for me to Answer.
During yesterday's proceedings in the case of Con-Mech (Engineers) Limited v, Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (Engineering Section) the Court agreed to a proposal that a sum of £65,000 should be paid to the sequestrators on the instructions of donors who wished to

639
remain anonymous. This sum was sufficient to cover the compensation due to Con-Mech and to certain other judgment creditors, together with the costs awarded by the Court against the union. The Court therefore ordered that as soon as the payment had been made all the assets still being held by the sequestrators should be returned to the union. Subsequently, the union executive decided to call aff the strike which had begun on the previous day. Naturally, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment welcomed that decision. This case is yet another illustration of the damage which the Industrial Relations Act can do, and of the importance of getting rid of it as quickly as possible. That, my Lords, is what the Government intend to do.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords are relieved that a pointless strike has been called off The engineers' action, mercifully short lived, would have been not only damaging to industry and to the country as a whole, but would also have been a very serious attack, whether intended or not, on moderation and on the rule of law. I understand that a statement has to-day been made by Sir John Donaldson, the President of the Industrial Court, in which he said that there had been no contact between the court and the Government on the payment of £65,000 compensation. Can the Minister also confirm to the House now that there has been no contact between the Government and the anonymous donors, or anyone acting on their behalf?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, my right honourable friend was informed that such an offer was being made, but he was not aware of the identity of the donor or donors. He, or they, evidently considered it worth while to pay the money so that disruption of the national economy could be averted. The Government did not intervene to secure acceptance of the offer, which was finally made at a late stage in the Court's proceedings yesterday.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while obviously welcoming the manoeuvre which resulted in the ending of the strike by the engineers, may I ask the Government whether the acceptance by the court of a sum provided by an anonymous donor sufficient to meet the claims of
640
Con-Mech and other interests involved had no relation to the question of contempt of court, and, if so, why was it that Sir John Donaldson did not accept this offer when it was made a week ago, in which case there would have been no strike at all?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am afraid that that is a question that would be better directed to Sir John Donaldson than to the Government.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, then may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are prepared to condemn the action of the union in calling a strike?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated to the union in a speech that he made at Worthing and has since repeated in another place that in the present circumstances it would have been wiser for the union to have appeared before the court. We have also to recognise that the existence of the Industrial Relations Act is a standing provocation. He welcomed, and I welcome, the action of the union leadership in so swiftly calling off the strike action yesterday.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, does that mean that the Government do, or do not, condemn the action of the union in calling a strike?
LORD WIGG: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, would he bear in mind that there is one useful result that has come from the action of the A.U.E.W. in that it has demonstrated to the young bucks of the Conservative Party—and they may have representatives on this side of the House—that any ideas they have of following the example of Chile and using troops in order to usurp political power—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD WIGG: Will the noble Lord bear in mind that in Chile, that democratic country, there were those who thought they could do it? But this action has demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt, and will my noble friend affirm this, that so far as Great Britain is concerned—and the Conservative Party would do well to learn this, because they have thought along these lines in the past—it is not on?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, could I have an answer to my question?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I was about to answer it. I have told your Lordships of the advice which my right honourable friend gave to the union. If his advice had been taken, probably a strike would not have taken place. I do not think that it is necessary to express any further opinion as to the views of Her Majesty's Government on the strike.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the general opinion, I am sure on both sides of your Lordships' House, is that we are delighted that the strike has not been continued? But is it not true to say that the calling of a strike was quite within the law? Therefore, it does not call for any condemnation in a legalistic sense. That is the first thing I wish to ask my noble friend, that that should be clear.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, perhaps I could answer my noble friend's first question so that I do not forget it. I believe that the great mass of the people in the country and in your Lordships' House will be happy that the strike has so speedily come to an end. Perhaps those outside this House will be less interested in the technicalities of it, but they will be sufficiently grateful that it has come to an end. I have forgotten the second part of my noble friend's question.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, it was, whether the strike was within the law. That was the most important part of my question. In order to clarify the issue, which is my purpose, is it not true to say that to call a strike was quite within the law?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, that was the point that I had forgotten. It was said that it was not illegal to call a strike. One of the things that has been brought very closely to the attention of all of us is the fact that a law such as the Industrial Relations Act, which people do not like, causes them to do certain things. It may be that there are other things that people do which they are entitled to do which do not break the law, and other people dislike that just as much.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that of course everybody is glad that the strike has been called off, but that there are a great many people in this country who are very sorry that it was ever called on?
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords, but there are probably a much greater number who were equally sorry, or more sorry, that the cause of it was ever put on the Statute Book.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I now put my second question. In view of all the hullaballoo in several of the quality and non-quality newspapers this morning, and a great deal of talk that is going on about this matter, and the suggestion that some anonymous donor, or donors, whose name or names may be known to some people (I cannot say) have actually offered a bribe to the Industrial Relations Court, is this matter to be regarded by those who are worried as a form of corruption? If this is so, will it be dealt with in the usual fashion?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have no knowledge that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment regards this as a form of corruption. Perhaps Sir John Donaldson would wish to answer that question.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Mr. Scanlon's organisation, as well as being a trade union, is also a charity? May I ask him further whether it is a fact that if it is not a charity then the donor will have to live seven years, whereas if it is a charity he will have to live only one year before estate duty will have to be paid? Who is contemplating paying the estate duty?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, perhaps that is a matter which has not yet occurred to the donors. If I knew who they were I would draw their attention to what the noble Lord has said.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is not my noble friend aware that we, on this side of the House, really do deplore the doctrinaire attitude adopted by Members of the Opposition, who are much more concerned with scoring a debating point that with the good of the nation? Would not my noble friend agree that whether or not we like the idea of the strike, the decision to call it off indicates

643
what a political action took place when the Conservative Party passed this Bill and established a political court to deal with industrial matters, and that now the good sense of the nation has rallied round to cut this measure's bloody throat?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not find it necessary to disagree with anything that my noble friend has said.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not suppose that we shall make much more progress on those lines because the argument has been so well marked out in the past. Let me ask the noble Lord this question which concerns a point of real principle. I am not clear from the first Answer that he gave how much knowledge the Government had of the identity of the anonymous donors or anyone acting on their behalf, but do not the public have a right to know the identity of this group of people, whose actions—I do not say whether the actions are good or bad; I leave that out of account—have had a considerable political and industrial effect? Is it right that this matter should be shrouded in secrecy? How can the noble Lord defend this?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is not a question for the Government to defend or otherwise. The Government have no powers, or rather no duty, to extract from these people information which they wish to conceal. If they wish to make a donation of this kind and keep it to themselves, that is one of the privileges which still remain with private citizens of this country.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the anonymous donor, although unknown to the Government, is known to the Inland Revenue authorities?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I made inquiries before coming to the House this afternoon because of something that I heard on the radio this morning about the possible effect that this might have on company accounts if these donations came from companies. It is not clear whether these donations would be regarded as political or charitable donations requiring publicity in a company's accounts. I would suggest that this must obviously be a matter for the financial
644
advisers of the companies concerned, if they are companies, but, of course, if they are from individuals the point does not arise.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this is showing, is it not, staggering complacency on behalf of the Government. Is the noble Lord saying that he is satisfied, that he is content, that the identity of the donors should remain anonymous? Is he saying that the Government intend to make no inquiries? The Press will make inquiries and I shall be very surprised if the identity of the donors does not become public knowledge. Would it not be better if the Government had taken the initiative?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if it becomes public knowledge who the donors are, either through the activities of the Press or of noble Lords opposite or of noble Lords on this side of the House, good and well. The fact is that the strike has come to an end as a result of it and I can see no useful public service being served by knowing who the donors are. I have no reason for keeping them secret. If I knew the answer I should be happy to tell noble Lords, but I do not know the answer.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that both sides of the House, and the nation and industrialists are delighted that this strike has come to an end? Is he aware that this sanctimonious threnody about who made the donation would have been better years ago when over £1 million a year was donated to the Tory Party by big business? Until the Labour Government came in, nobody knew who gave the donations, but now we know.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if too much attention is paid to the question of who gave the money, we are in danger of creating the impression outside your Lordships' House that some Members of this House rather regret that the strike came to an end, because of the particular fashion in which it came to an end. It would not be a service to Parliament if that impression was created.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, is it not true that when this Bill was going through this House some

645
of us forecast exactly what was going to happen? Is it not also true that on television yesterday, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said that if the fine were paid by a third party he would consider that to be quite legal? He at no time raised the question as to whether the name of the third party should be divulged. Is it not also true that where third parties have paid fines of delinquents in the dock for various reasons, this has been accepted and the question of the identity of the third party has never before been brought into question?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is perfectly true that there are ample precedents of third parties paying sums on behalf of other people. It so happens, so far as I know, that this is the first time that this has happened in the Industrial Relations Court. It does not establish a new principle, therefore, but merely applies it in another court. One of the reasons why I said to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that I did not think there was any obligation on the Government to try to find out who the donors are, was simply because of the point attributed to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Hailsham, that there is nothing illegal in this action.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, what the noble and learned Lord said yesterday does not bear on the point I am making. I was not questioning whether or not it was legal. I think the Government have a responsibility. They have a responsibility for the standards of public life and I question whether it is desirable practice that actions which have substantial political and industrial effect should be shrouded in secrecy. I am astonished that the noble Lord cannot see the significance of this point.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, is it not obvious that noble Lords opposite can hardly hide their chagrin that the strike has been settled? So far as the Conservative Party is concerned, it welcomed this strike because it looked as though it was creating a dilemma for the Labour Government which would be acutely embarrassing. What has been demonstrated is the tomfoolery, futility and political incompetence of the Party opposite in trying to enmesh industrial relations in the web of law. That has failed. They
646
have failed and they would do themselves a good turn if they belted up.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I hesitate to go as far as my noble friend Lord Wigg in that matter, but I agree with him in the sense that noble Lords opposite are not doing this House a service by creating the impression that they are more interested in knowing who are the donors of the money than in having the strike brought to so speedy a conclusion.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that it was not profitable to go on, was quite right. He said that progress will not be made. I think that the only hope for progress is for Members on the other side to start reading the history books of the Conservative Party. They may remember that there was a famous man who was kept out of power in the Conservative Party for many years, and who said quite definitely, "Never bring industrial relations into legal matters at all". He warned against that. That man was Churchill, and he said one should never get industrial relations involved with lawyers, the law and judges. If noble Lords remember that, perhaps we will not have ever again the trouble we have had for the last two and a half years.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House is not here but I think he would be intervening if he had been. I do not wish to pursue the matter now, but in the first words I said in these exchanges—and I have my note here—I said that all noble Lords would be relieved that the strike had been called off. I should like that in the Record.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think it is appropriate that we return to feudal reform in Scotland. My only regret in parting with the question is that while the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that in his opening remarks, the subsequent exchanges rather took from the value of his preliminary comment.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, can I pay—
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, we are now back on feudal reform and I doubt that we can get Con-Mech into that.

LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.56 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this feudal reform Bill, to which I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has so firmly insisted on returning, has been agreed in principle between us all for a long time and any points that are likely to be raised in Committee need not take up more than a minute or two on Second Reading. I believe that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde wants to raise the question of long leases which may be of very serious consequences to some people. I look forward very much to hearing my noble friend Lord Balerno. I had thought that he was going to speak before me but I see that our places have been changed on the list.
The only point I want to make is one which I would certainly not describe as a major one and it would not merit anything like a speech, but it may merit a little consideration. The reason why I feel particularly interested in it was that I had two periods of Office long ago as Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. My second period was in the wartime Coalition. The Secretary of State who was my chief was Tom Johnston. He was a prominent member of the Labour Party in this Coalition and at that time there were an enormous number of people of Scottish descent coming over here on military business and serving in the armed forces of the United States, Canada and elsewhere. Tom Johnston was always tremendously keen and thought it was a tremendously good thing to maintain connections between Scotsmen in all the different parts of the world. He was very keen on history and used to read a great deal of it. He often used to tell me that the more history he read about Scotland the more he felt he knew what to do to help Scotland now in modern times. One of the small ways in which we can help the development of good relations between people of Scottish descent in different parts of the world—the United States, Canada and elsewhere—is connected with this question of blenching, although it may seem a little remote, which the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton
648
have mentioned. It does happen, not with tremendous frequency, but every now and then, that this nominal feuduty which can be created and which under the Bill in the last Parliament was going to have been continued, enables Scotsmen abroad either collectively or individually and who may not be able to live here—who are citizens perhaps of the United States or Canada—to buy old centres or family strongholds of the clan, or whatever name you may call it, to which they used to belong and towards which they still feel an affection. They can give it as a feu to someone who will work it for a nominal payment of a penny a year and all the members of the clan will still have the satisfaction—sometimes quite a lot of satisfaction—of being able to come over here, as some do now in enormous numbers by aeroplane or by ship, to visit Scotland and see the territory with which they and their forefathers were associated. One of the best known cases recently was that of the MacKinnon clan which has acquired by this method a permanent interest in the old territory around which the clan used to dwell.
This is not a question which lends itself to a long discussion in public, but we spent a lot of time during the last Parliament talking to the late Lord Advocate about it. Many of us were very glad that the Bill introduced by the last Government continued provision for this matter. I do not ask your Lordships to discuss it now, but I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether we may have opportunities of discussing this subject with the present Lord Advocate, who I suppose is the chief legal authority involved in this Bill and who, I know, is a man of very great understanding and great good will. I cannot help feeling a little suspicion that one reason why this penny feu duty clause may have been dropped is that the bureaucratic mind is a little apt to regard this sort of thing as rather irritating and tiresome, and not quite in accordance with the ideas of people who think that our laws should be more uniform or put more in a straitjacket. I therefore ask this of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who said something on Second Reading, which I do not want to follow up now, to the effect that it might still be possible to go on feuing ground even without the feu duties, but I

649
do not know whether that would last very long.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I did not say that it might; I said that it would until the final Bill which will get rid of feudal conditions entirely. What will happen in that Bill I cannot predict, but under this Bill it will still be possible to feu a piece of land creating feudal land conditions, the only condition being that what one could do before and cannot do now is extract a new feu duty.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, one has to pay only a penny if one is asked and it costs 3p to ask for it even by sending the letter demanding payment by second-class post. I am grateful for the noble Lord's interruption, and what he said makes it all the more plain that this is not a question which we could usefully debate across the Floor of the House. I ask him to do what he can to arrange to make it possible for us to explain the real objectives we seek to the Lord Advocate and to the noble Lord's other colleagues who are concerned.

BREAD SUBSIDY
4.5 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection is making in another place to-day about the bread subsidy. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have decided after consultations with representatives of the bakery industry to increase the rate of the bread subsidy in order to prevent price increases of 1½p on a large loaf and ½p on a small loaf that would otherwise occur on Monday, May 13, following notifications to the Price Commission by the major plant bakers. The rate will accordingly be increased to £3·81 per 280 lb. sack of flour used on or after Sunday, May 12, in the production of loaves that qualify for the subsidy. At the same time in response to representations from honourable Members and from consumers the coverage of the subsidy will be extended to include all loaves baked
650
in tins and weighing 8 ozs. to 10 ozs. inclusive, but not to smaller loaves, fancy bread products or bread rolls. I will place the amended bread subsidy scheme in the Library as soon as possible.
"The cost of this increase in the rate of subsidy is provisionally estimated at £30·9 million in 1974–75, and at £35·7 million in a full year. These figures may be subject to some minor adjustment in the light of discussions I am having with the bakery industry about the method of calculating the rate of subsidy. I shall, of course, review the rate of subsidy if there are net reductions in the industry's allowable costs, for instance as a result of a drop in flour prices.
"Estimates will be laid before the House in the usual way, and in the meantime it will be necessary to have recourse to the Contingencies Fund."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
BARONESS YOUNG: I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for repeating this Statement, but I am bound to tell him that the only part I could commend is that, having decided to subsidise bread, this subsidy is to be extended to the 8 ounce loaf. This is a small concession, but, given that there must be a subsidy at all, there will be more help for the elderly, particularly the elderly, single people.
As the noble Lord will be aware, the policy of indiscriminate food subsidies is not one which we on this side of the House support. Such subisidies mean that, regardless of need, everyone gets the subsidy. Would the noble Lord not agree that it would be far better, and juster to help directly families who most need it and not to spread the available money very thinly over the entire population?
Having said that, I should like the noble Lord, if he will, to answer the following points. First, how much can the average family be expected to benefit as a result of this increased subsidy? I ask this because obviously what the housewife wants to know is how much benefit she can expect when she goes shopping. The noble Lord said that the cost for the remainder of this year is £30·9 million and for next year £35·7

651
million. Does this include the administrative costs or is it the basic cost of the flour subsidy?
Further, will the noble Lord explain how the subsidy is arrived at? Is it based on the costs of the largest manufacturers, as it appears to be? If this is so, what is the position of smaller manufacturers who may well find that because of this they are unable to put up their prices—based on increased costs outside their control but which are costs that have been agreed as an expected price increase by the Price Commission? What will they do if they find that the subsidy is not enough? How are they expected to manage? Finally, if the bread subsidy is to continue, will the noble Lord consider subsidising flour directly so that it might be of benefit to those provident housewives who bake their own bread?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while recognising the political importance from the Government's point of view of subsidising the production of foodstuffs, would not the Government agree that if inflation continues at its present rate it might well soon become too expensive to pursue the policy of protection to the consumer at the expense of the taxpayer?
4.10 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for the way in which they have received the Statement. I particularly thank the noble Baroness for having the courtesy to give me notice of her questions. First of all, as to the savings to the average family: the average family of two adults and two children will save, so far as the bread subsidy is concerned, 8¾p per week, and so far as all subsidies are concerned 60¼p per week.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I ask him whether he really feels that there is a justification for making a subsidy which benefits the average family by just over 8p a week at enormous administrative cost and of course at a cost to the taxpayer?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I will deal with that when I come to why we subsidise. There was next a question on
652
the total new cost. The provisional estimates are put at £47·5 million for 1974–75 and £52 million for a full year. This, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is the cost of the subsidy without the administrative costs. If that is wrong I will write to the noble Baroness. I have had it confirmed that the cost does not include the administrative costs. In the draft of the Bill dealing with all subsidies, £650,000, most of which covers the bread subsidy, will account for the bulk of the administrative costs. To put it another way, the total cost of administration will be £650,000 and the major part of that will be for the bread subsidy.
We were asked how the subsidy was calculated. The subsidy is calculated from the pre-notification of cost increases which are sent to the Price Commission, and I would direct the attention of the noble Baroness to the paragraph in the Statement which reads,
"My right honourable friend is having discussions with the trade on the calculation of the subsidy."
I have no doubt that the point the noble Baroness raised in connection with the calculation of the subsidy will be one of the matters on which my right honourable friend will be receiving representations. The next question was whether flour could be considered. We are still considering what other items may be subsidised, but I would remind the noble Baroness that there is not such a strong case for flour as for bread. By far the greater part of the flour sold is not used for bread baking; it is used for other things.
Finally I come to the question, why subsidise? There are two main reasons, the first being to minimise the impact of inflation on the lower paid. In this respect we have to bear in mind that the average family spends 24 per cent. of their income on food, while a couple who are on pension spend on the average 39 per cent. of their income on food. That shows the difference in the proportion of incomes spent on food. It is true that in order to minimise the impact in this way everybody has to benefit, but of course those who are better off eat less bread in proportion to their income and pay more taxes. There is a second objective which I think is of equal importance. We have inherited the inflationary economy and we are trying to put the matter right.

653
We have to minimise the impact of the expectation of inflation. It is the expectation of inflation which is the most important cause of high interest rates and which encourages applications for wage increases. Only by trying to control prices by subsidies and other means can we reduce this expectation of inflation which is so damaging to our economy.
LORD GLADWYN: Will the noble Lord answer my question?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, it would be conceivable for us to get to a stage when the cost was too great. At the moment £550 million has been allocated by the Chancellor for the purposes of subsidies. Only something under 70 per cent. has so far been used, so we have a little way to go before we need be bothered with that problem.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree, in answer to the two points he has made in justification of food subsidies, that although it is important to do everything possible to minimise the effect of inflation on the lower paid it would be far better if, for example, he chose to do so by giving help to poorer families, as Sir Keith Joseph did with the family incomes supplement, or indeed to consider other monetary devices such as a family allowance for the first child rather than an indiscriminate subsidy?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, we believe that in the present circumstances the urgent need is to get control of prices. Our method of subsidies will help to do that; the alternative method proposed will not.

LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.19 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, this somewhat staccato debate makes it rather difficult to follow coherently the Land Tenure Bill for Scotland but luckily my job to-day is a very simple one because I completely and utterly welcome this revised Bill. It is very much better than the Bill originally brought forward to this House in January last on which there had been considerable debate in Committee
654
in another place. That Bill was a bit of a hotch-potch by the time it reached us. Some Amendments were being put forward which would have improved it, but I think the steps the present Government have taken have tidied the matter up considerably and have made the Bill much better than when it set out from the House of Commons.
My Lords, I particularly welcome Clause 5 and the compulsory obligation by the proprietor to review the feuduties on the sale. This was a point that the Church of Scotland had particularly asked for. The other point they asked for was the simple form of procedure, and this also I welcome very much indeed. May I say to those Members of your Lordships' House who were not here for the previous debate that the Church of Scotland derives approximately £125,000 a year from feuduties, and therefore it is very much concerned that this matter should be put on a proper footing. Although these feuduties were originally purchased by the old Church of Scotland at the turn of the century at about 25 years purchase, now they are being redeemed at eight years' purchase on what is very devalued currency. So the Church of Scotland has lost a great deal of money over the feuduties business as a whole.
I welcome the action of the Government in streamlining the nominal feuduty and doing away with it while still finding it possible to leave the conditions to be imposed. It is most curious how, when the last Bill was in this House, we could be assured by the experts, that this was quite utterly and absolutely impossible to do. Now, this afternoon, for the second time we have had something happen which the experts advising the previous Government said it was quite impossible to do and which the experts advising the present Government have discovered is quite possible.
I think one should take note of how a change of Government can also create a change in the quality of the experts' advice. I rather think that the improvement of the Bill that has taken place here is another clear justification for the existence of your Lordships' House in tidying up matters of this kind. I sincerely hope that when the Bill goes to another place it will obtain a speedy passage into law.
4.23 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, wish first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the manner in which he has introduced this Second Reading debate and the short and clear way in which he has put his case. I wish to say at once that I have no criticism to offer of the changes which have been made in the Bill since we considered the previous Bill about three months ago. My principal difficulty in relation to the Bill is that I cannot quite understand what is to be gained by restricting to residential property the number of years for which an owner can lease a house. I have tried to discover some justification for it but have failed. I shall be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can help me. As a result, I turned to the Green Paper, because there I thought I might find something helpful. However, again I failed.
The Green Paper presents a number of suggestions. First, it says that there are potential advantages to the owner of property in leasing it rather than selling it. The Green Paper does not say why or what are these great advantages, but perhaps the following words are meant to deal with that subject. It states:
"… may receive a capital payment for the grant of the lease."
So far as that is concerned, I understand that the argument is that if a capital payment is demanded it is much the same thing as though you are issuing a feu. The capital payment for the lease, followed by the rent, approximates to the capital payment paid in acquiring the feu, with the feuduty becoming an annual payment. But if that is the principal reason, why not get rid of the capital payment and leave the owner of residential property to lease it for so long as he wishes? I should have thought that it was quite simple for the Parliamentary draftsman to draft a provision in the Bill to make such a course of action possible. The Green Paper then goes on to say:
"… if the lease is a very long one, he will receive a quasi-perpetual payment."
They are wonderful words that they put into these papers! What he will receive of course, is the rent which over the years he stipulates in the lease, and nothing more than that. But I do not honestly
656
see why he should not receive a rent for something that he lets to someone else.
In a most extraordinary passage, the Green Paper points out that, it being common for leases to contain
"… a provision for breaks at intervals when the rent can be reviewed, he will be able, by increasing the rent, to share in any rise in the value of his property."
Why should not he receive something in those terms? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, would agree with me wholeheartedly that anyone who is letting, renting or leasing a house at present and who does not put a break in the lease every five years or so, is behaving ridiculously in these days of inflation and at the end of the day he may find that his house has been on lease for no value at all in money terms.
The Green Paper, referring to the owner, continues that
"… when the property eventually reverts to him at the termination of the lease, he may stand to gain from improvements …"
The noble Lord knows as well as I do that in every lease ever drawn up by any sensible person, all the conditions regarding improvements are inserted in it, and what happens is that if the lessor wishes to make some improvement he is not allowed to do so without informing his landlord. In those circumstances they meet and agree, if it is a good improvement which helps the landlord as well as the tenant, to perhaps split the cost. If they do not do that, they agree that when the lease terminates compensation will be decided in a certain manner. None of these things seem to help me to discover why on earth this prohibition on owners should be in the Bill and what purpose it has.
A letter from official quarters told me that I would see that there were valid social objections, and that I would find them in paragraph 64. I looked up paragraph 64, which says that the social objections arise "especially to leases of undeveloped land for house-building". I am not dealing with that question; my objection has nothing to do with undeveloped land. I am thinking of a case where a house is capable of being leased; the house is there and the question is to obtain a tenant for it. The paragraph goes on:
"… a tenant may not fully realise"—

657
these are the actual words and this is one of the great social objections—
"until the terminal date of his lease is approaching that the house which he occupies, which he may have built"—
I am not dealing with what he may have built, but with a house that was built—
"(or at least improved, extended or maintained) from his own resources"—
I do not know what other resources would have been involved unless the landlord agreed to carry out the improvements—
"and which indeed he has perhaps come to think of as his own…"
and he suddenly comes to the conclusion that at the end of the lease the house will revert to the owner—a most extraordinary conclusion to arrive at, I should have thought.
But, really, this is absolutely farcical. Here is a man who entered into a lease, who knows all the conditions which he accepted and which he agreed with the landlord and who has been paying rent every half-year for any number of years, and yet he comes to the conclusion that the house might have been his own and is very much upset about it. At the end of this it says:
"A householder who does realise that he is only a tenant will naturally become less ready to maintain the property".
Goodness gracious! Again, the terms of the lease deal with the maintenance of the property. He has accepted the lease, and he should stand by it.
I find these arguments thin and absolutely unconvincing, and I really would ask the noble Lord to have another look at this because there are all kinds of cases which can arise, and I can think of one or two. I can think of a case where the landlord has his own house and a dower house, and where he has a younger member of the family (his eldest son being the one who is going to succeed him in his own house) who works about the place, perhaps, and to whom he wishes to give a house with security of tenure for life. Why should he not? Why should it be only for a matter of 20 years? One can think of many other cases.
Another case that strikes me is where a landlord has a daughter-in-law who has become a widow and who very much
658
wishes to remain in the house in which she has lived with her husband, which is on the estate, and where the father-in-law naturally wishes to secure for her complete security for the rest of her life. That is ruled out, too. I am glad the noble Lord nods his head. He is going to be able to help me on this, I am quite sure. What I understand is that in these two cases they can receive a liferent. As a matter of fact, I do not think that gives them complete security, but the noble Lord will tell me that in a minute. The point is that if there is a payment of rent of any form whatsoever, then the lease cannot extend beyond 20 years.
My Lords, there are these cases which can arise. The lady I spoke of, the daughter-in-law, might be a lady of considerable means who might not wish to be sponging on her father-in-law, who might not be so well off as she is, and who wishes to pay a rent so that she feels that she is under no obligation to him. There are all these kinds of cases which arise, and still I am left in doubt and wonder what on earth is the purpose of this provision in the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will help me to the best of his ability, which I know is very great.
4.33 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, while looking forward to what the noble Lord has to say in reply to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—it will be interesting to see how the points he has raised will be dealt with—I should like to reinforce in a few words what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in welcoming Clause 5 of this Bill, expressing the hope that when it reaches the Statute Book the conditions which are laid down here will still be there.
When the noble Lord, Lord Balemo, mentioned the £125,000 a year in feuduties paid to the Church of Scotland, my mind went back to a postcard which I found in my desk the other day with a King Edward halfpenny stamp on it. When the Church of Scotland took out these feuduties you could send a notice of duty in an open envelope for half an old penny. To-day, to collect feuduties of £125,000 the postage is a minimum of 3p per notice. This gives some idea of how welcome to the Church of Scotland will be this opportunity to shake off some of this burden.
4.35 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am very grateful for the way in which your Lordships have received this Bill, and in particular for the unanimously warm welcome which has been given to the new Parts of the Bill. This is not surprising because, after all, it really gives effect to the views which were expressed by your Lordships on the Second Reading of the previous Bill. I think that all I have now to do, therefore, is to reply to the few questions which have been put to me by the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, in giving his welcome to the Bill, as I had referred to a "feudal fiction" in the one penny, in turn said that we were creating another feudal fiction in creating a new feu and then went on to say, in effect, that we were not creating a new feu. That, of course, really is not the case, because what is being allowed is the continued creation under this Bill of feu contracts; and, as I said, the only difference which exists between the present and the new one will be that it will not be necessary to have money passing in order to enforce the land conditions. That is the short answer I have, but perhaps the noble Lord would like me to read the legal answer, which is not so easy to understand.
Referring to the suggestion that we are creating a dangerous legal fiction by dispensing with the one penny feuduty, it says that it is necessary at Common Law to have at least a nominal feuduty in order to have the requisite legal interest of the superior to enable him to enforce feudal conditions. Now—this is not the legal answer; I am adding my own words—I would suspect that this was what the experts said on the previous occasion, having looked at Common Law. But, the experts having looked at the matter further, that then enabled the next part of the note to be written.
But if it is enacted by Parliament that, as regards land conditions, et cetera, a feu shall have effect, or continue to have effect, as if it were subject to a feuduty, that is sufficient to provide the requisite legal interest without the necessity of perpetuating a minimal actual feuduty. As the only purpose in the previous Bill of creating this nominal penny, if asked, was
660
to give the right to enforce the conditions attaching to the land, the advice which we have is that this can be accomplished without having this penny.
It has one effect, and that is to eliminate one condition which still exists but which I do not believe has been exercised for many years, though it potentially could be raised, and that is the right to irritate the feu; in other words, for there to revert to the superior all ownership of the land and the buildings thereon if the feuduty remained unpaid for a period of more than two years. I do not think anyone particularly wants to preserve this condition, because it is rather doubtful whether under existing circumstances any court would be very willing to allow the feu to be irritated without at least giving the owner another chance to pay the feuduty. So it is not worth while keeping it in just for that purpose, and it does remove a potential threat to ownership which, in a property-owning democracy, there is no real need to continue.
I have dealt with the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the clan. It will still be permissible, as I have said, for a feu of that kind to be created. It could be in favour of a clan society, and the fact that no money is passing will not prevent it. On the question which the noble Earl raised about having another meeting with the Lord Advocate to discuss the contents of the Bill, there has not been opportunity for me to consult my learned friend on this matter but I have no reason to believe that, if the Scottish Peers' Association were to request such a meeting before the Bill concludes its passage through your Lordships' House, he would refuse that. So perhaps it would be a matter for either the chairman or the secretary of the Association to consider whether such a meeting is desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, welcomed the Bill in its entirety. I intended to mention in moving the Second Reading of the Bill that there were three points originally raised by the Church of Scotland. The noble Lord will remember that I said that I found it possible to support him on two of these points but could not support him on the third, relating to the abolition of the right of preemption in relation to certain churches, such as, for example, burgh churches. The Church, having achieved its two main

661
points, is satisfied to leave well alone but has asked the Lord Advocate whether this point will be taken into consideration when the next stage in the reform of the system is dealt with, and the Lord Advocate has very readily confirmed that this will be done. The Church is content on that point. I thought perhaps it would be worth while putting this on the record, because the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, speaking in pools language, has gained "two wins and a draw".
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, among others, welcomed the changes in the Bill and returned to the points he had made on the Second Reading of the previous Bill. I shook my head—he said I nodded my head—when he said that this could not be done. I think I had better read the note I have been given, which is as follows: "The grant by a father to an unmarried daughter or to a widowed daughter-in-law of a family house. The Bill does not prevent the grant of a genuine life rent, as distinct from a life tenancy, provided that there is no annual payment other than that which would make the daughter, daughter-in-law, the son or whoever it may be liable, for example, for the continuation costs relating to the maintenance of the property, for the payment of rates and so on." This, in contradiction to the noble Lord's belief, will give complete security of tenure for life.
Then there is the other point raised by the noble Lord; namely, that the daughter or daughter-in-law might be better off than the father-in-law. The obvious recourse is to have a lease not exceeding 20 years. If she wishes to pay, then the lease makes it possible; and if the relationship between father and daughter-in-law is as excellent as this, there is little risk that, if both of them are still alive at the end of the 20-year lease, the lease would not be renewed. Perhaps this point may not have been appreciated. It is not stated that the lease shall be for only 20 years and then that is finality. Another lease, for whatever period of years was deemed suitable, can be entered into. So if there was a very young person who wanted to grant a 20-year lease to another young person and both were still on the scene 60 years later, they could have gone through three 20-year leases in their lifetimes, and it
662
would not conflict with the law as laid down.
I would not necessarily wish to disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, read from the Green Paper, other than to make the slightly "Party" point that it was not my Government which produced the Green Paper, but his. Having said that, let me also say that had the same experts produced a Green Paper for this Government, probably it would have been little different from the previous one. However, the social point is clear. In Scotland we have not a history of long residential leases, because of the feudal system. We did not need the leasehold system, and I do not think there is any desire to import into Scotland the problems which beset the English and the Welsh on these long residential leases. The point will not arise on a twenty-year lease. No one takes a lease for twenty years and imagines he has bought a house, but if there is a lease for ninety-nine years or 199 years it is very difficult for people to realise that they have not bought the house, even though a substantial capital sum may have changed hands. In fact, they may have bought the house, not realising that there will come a point when the house ceases to be theirs. This is the disadvantage of a lease which in some cases may be for a piece of land on which a house is built, or alternatively, may be a lease of the house itself.
One point is quite certain: putting in a limitation of twenty years will effectively stop any question of a piece of land being disposed of for the erection of a house on it because, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—"anybody who builds a house at his own expense on a piece of land for which he only had a twenty-year lease would be a very stupid person". But sometimes legislation has to be designed to protect stupid persons from their own stupidity. We do not want to see that system brought into Scotland, and this is the reason why we are restricting it to twenty years. In those cases which the noble Lord has quoted concerning the generosity of a father to an unmarried daughter or to a widowed daughter-in-law (where there is no desire that one shall profit at the expense of the other), the life rent adequately protects the situation. In a case where

663
there is a willingness to pay for what is provided, there is the opportunity for renewing the lease on acceptable terms after its expiry at the end of 20 years. This, again, is adequate protection to cover the point raised by the noble Lord.
I hope that with these explanations your Lordships will find it possible to send the Bill very speedily to another place. I regret to inform your Lordships that there will be a number of amendments made to it because in view of the speed with which, last time, we attempted to give effect to the desires of your Lordships, there was not sufficient opportunity to make all the drafting Amendments which were necessary then. There are two sets of these. There are more than a dozen Amendments, but none of them concerns matters of principle and they will be dealt with very speedily. I am most grateful to your Lordships for the way in which the Bill has been received.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may say something to the noble Lord. I want to thank him very much for the trouble he has taken in replying to the points that I raised. There is only one flaw, so far as I can see, in the argument concerning the lady with some money who is a daughter-inlaw—her father-in-law may die and be succeeded by a gentleman who does not like the lady in question at all. In that case she will be out at the end of 20 years. It seems to me rather an unfortunate state of affairs.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords, that may be so; but I am afraid the complications of feudal tenure are sufficiently difficult already without importing into the Bill special provisions for resolving family quarrels.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SCOTTISH HOSPITAL TRUST SCHEME 1974
4.50 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES rose to move, That the Draft Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1974, laid before the House on April 2 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will agree
664
that I may at the same time deal with the draft Scottish Hospital Trust (Amendment) Regulations 1974, which were laid on the same date. These two instruments cover different aspects of the work of the Scottish Hospital Trust in connection with endowments to which the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act 1971 refers, and can most conveniently be considered together They are a consequence of the reorganisation of the Health Service on April 1 and are necessary in order that in general, the arrangements which were in force in the days of the hospital boards can continue to apply to health boards. There are a few minor changes to which I shall make special reference.
It may be convenient if I start by saying something about the previous provisions. Under the 1971 Act, the Scottish Hospital Trust took over on April 1, 1972, endowments which were originally held by voluntary hospitals at November 5, 1946, and vested in the hospital boards from July, 1948. The Trust was a new body set up with the duty of holding and managing these funds and distributing the net income from them in accordance with schemes made by the Secretary of State. The Trust was given other powers in connection with endowments; for example, it could receive new endowments in its own right and add the income from these to be distributed with the income from the endowments transferred by the hospital boards. It was also given power to provide a management service to hospital boards, in respect of the endowments which the boards had received after November, 1946, and still retained.
The Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1972 was the instrument which prescribed how the income from the endowments transferred to or given to the Trust was to be distributed. At the same time, the Scottish Hospital Trust Regulations were made to provide for exceptions from the transfer, valuation of endowments transferred, and borrowing by hospital boards against the capital of the endowments.
It is now necessary to replace or amend these two instruments. As I mentioned, there is a primary need to do this because, apart from the State Hospital, the authorities mentioned in the previous instrument no longer exist. Their rights in these endowments have been transferred to the new health boards by Section

665
38 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972, which came into operation on April 1 this year. The same section also contains certain provisions relating to distribution of income, and I should now like to say a word or two about this.
The basis of income distribution is contained in paragraph 3 of the Scheme and is the same as before: that is, each board will receive £3 per bed per annum plus a balance based on the value of the endowments which were transferred to the Trust by the hospital boards. The new health boards will be credited with the value of the capital which was transferred by the hospital boards from which they have taken over, and arrangements have been made for these rights in endowments to be appropriately apportioned in cases where the areas or responsibilities of the former boards have been divided by the effect of reorganisation. The State Hospital, also, will continue to receive its £3 per bed—that is all it receives because it did not contribute any capital to the Trust.
There are two new features in the Scheme. The first is contained in paragraph 3(a)(i) and will enable Health Service beds in local authority institutions to be counted for the £3 per bed payment. The other is in paragraph 4 and is a little more complex. In this paragraph we are giving effect to the requirement of Section 38(3) of the 1972 Act that regard should be had to the former arrangements for income distribution.
Accordingly, the health boards, although they are administering an integrated Health Service, will be required to use this endowment income for hospital purposes or medical research; and, further, groups of hospitals, corresponding to the hospitals previously managed by the respective boards of management, will receive approximately the same level of income as they did before—health boards will be required to allocate 90 per cent. of the income in this way. These arrangements are embodied in paragraphs 4(3) to (5), and your Lordships will note that we shall be able to deal with the opening of new hospitals and the closing of old ones without having to make a new scheme each time. Paragraph 5 of the scheme makes the same provisions for the use of accumulated income from these endowments
666
which was left with the hospital boards in 1972.
The Schedule contains a small number of special conditions which originate from the wishes of donors and are still acceptable to the boards concerned. Section 7(2) of the 1971 Act, as amended, requires that hospital boards and now health boards should be consulted about these schemes. We have done this and the draft scheme has been accepted with very few comments. My Lords, there is little I need say about the draft regulations. They do not alter the effect of the 1972 regulations other than to omit provisions no longer required; they merely introduce references to health boards in place of those to hospital boards, and transfer to health boards the rights and obligations which the 1972 regulations placed on hospital boards.
When these two instruments were debated in another place, it was pointed out by a spokesman for the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments that, although we were proposing to make a new Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme, we had not taken any action to repeal the 1972 Scheme, so that two statutory instruments which were to some extent contradictory would still be in operation. It was suggested that Section 61 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972 provided a means of obviating this situation by an Order repealing the earlier scheme. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State proposes to make such an Order at the same time as he makes the new scheme. It is accordingly for me to express gratitude to the Select Committee for their assistance in this matter. I hope that the House will approve the two instruments. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1974, laid before the House on April 2 be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
4.58 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, the House is very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for giving us such detailed information about both the Scheme and the amended Regulations. My remarks will be directed in the first place towards the Scheme itself; and, in particular, to paragraph 5, "Application of accumulated income held by Health Boards". In the

667
present financial climate, this is of great importance, and the noble Lord has already advised the House that 90 per cent. of the income must be applied by boards within the year, with a 10 per cent. retention. Therefore, I looked with some interest at paragraph 5(3) but I found it extremely difficult to interpret. Subparagraph (3) is a relatively long one running to 140 words between full-stops. I hope, with the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has given us, that this will be satisfactory for the health boards to operate. But in these circumstances one looks, as a trustee, to the assistance of the Charity Commissioners; and their assistance may further be required in regard to the application of certain small matters in the Schedule, referred to on page 4 of the Statutory Instrument. There are certain gifts which are set out in the Schedule to which we need not refer in particular detail. But trustees are placed under a series of obligations, which may become ante-dated as time goes on, partly because of planning consequences regarding the cemeteries and churchyards, and partly because of the devaluation of the pound. In this regard I hope that the Charity Commissioners will look with favour upon the adjustment and revision of certain parts of these as is required from time to time, and bear in mind the Macnaughten Rules which Lord Macnaughten set out in 1891, "for other purposes beneficial to the community". It is very necessary that the Charity Commissioners should take a reasonable attitude, and I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with me in this regard.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for the way in which he has welcomed the Scheme, although I am not so grateful for the technical points he has raised. It is obvious that I am not the only one who has the benefit of expert advice in this matter. However, I can rest content on the fact that the regulations have, as I said, or rather implied, met
668
with the approval of those concerned. I said they had met with very little comment. I have no doubt that the circumstances to which the noble Lord draws attention were within the knowledge of the parties concerned. What I am not absolutely certain about is how easy it will prove to be to change the terms of some of these bequests. I had experience a number of years ago when I was Lord Provost of Dundee of trying to get a bequest altered when it had become quite out of date and it was no longer possible to do with the money what was originally asked because the objects had all disappeared. There was a somewhat lengthy process of recourse to the Court of Session before an alteration could be made.
I would hope that the Scheme has been so framed that it is not necessary to do that, while of course taking all reasonable steps to protect the wishes of donors. I almost hesitate to use the word "donors" because of an earlier discussion this afternoon in which "donor" was almost felt to be a term of abuse, but in this context it is a perfectly respectable word which no one will criticise. If I should find that in fact the points raised by the noble Lord have not been adequately dealt with in what I have just said, I will certainly take the opportunity of writing to him to let him know, but I do not expect that that will prove to be necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTTISH HOSPITAL TRUST (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1974
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move the next Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Draft Scottish Hospital Trust (Amendment) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on April 2 be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
5.2 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon for not being in the House when I should have been a moment ago. I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill—
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I wanted to make one comment, so perhaps the noble Lord will move the appropriate Motion.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Amendment of Section 39 of the Social Security Act 1973]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I was unavoidably absent from the Second Reading of this Bill last week and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on the Benches opposite was rather surprised that we should deal with a National Insurance Bill when, as he said, I was not present to speak. I should not like the Bill to go right through its stages in this House and disappoint him. While congratulating the Government, obviously, on the increase in pensions, I am particularly sorry that they have not used this opportunity to abolish the earnings rule. I recognise that the Minister will tell me that this would be costly to do. I am, however, still unconvinced on the figures that have been produced over past years, because I cannot see how that contention can be justified. I would merely say that those concerned form the only group in the community now who are unable to collect a straightforward pension without being subjected to some kind of rule which makes part
670
of what they receive repayable if they earn over a certain amount. This is completely out-dated. We need the skills and abilities of many of these people. If it is wrong to earn when one is receiving a retirement pension, I cannot appreciate the fine distinction as to why it is wrong when you are 60, if you are a woman, but right if you are 65; and wrong at 65, if you are a man, but right at 70. I strongly suspect the reason is that probably no one is going to offer an opportunity for anybody to earn when he is 70 and therefore the Government are not so concerned about it.
Particularly in London, we are surrounded by all kinds of posts that need to be filled. As I have said before many times, I am concerned not for the people who have a great deal of capital behind them, but for people who retire very often on only the State pension and who could fulfil a very useful function by working, let us say, in the catering trade or in some occupation of that kind. This rule is completely outmoded and this is the moment when it should be abolished, although I would not distress the Minister at this late stage of the Bill by attempting to have the clause deleted. Nevertheless, it would be unfair if I did not say, as I have said to previous Governments, that this is a matter which should be looked at much more closely. In each Bill we seem to include the same old anomalies. I say quite respectfully to the Minister that the administration of the rule must cost money to operate. It is a very complicated scheme; it is not even based on a flat retention but upon a scale. I feel that at this stage the earnings rule should be abolished.
LORD ABERDARE: When I mentioned that I was disappointed that the noble Baroness did not take part in the Second Reading debate, that was in no sense a criticism of her; it was an expression of our disappointment because she had contributed on so many other occasions to similar Bills and we should have missed her words of wisdom on this occasion. Now, however, the noble Baroness has put that right and I much welcome what she has said. She has been consistent in opposing the earnings rule, and I do not think the earnings rule has a friend in the House, but unfortunately when we come to sitting on the Bench

671
opposite and having to find the money for relaxing the rule then matters of priority arise, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is now going to explain to us.
5.8 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I believe that most Members of your Lordships' House have a certain amount of sympathy, as the noble Lord opposite has just said, with what my noble friend Lady Phillips has requested. However, one must face the fact that the whole purpose of the earnings rule was designed to encourage men to retire on reaching the age of 65 and to make this possible by giving them a pension, albeit one to which they had made a contribution, and by giving a pension to their wives if they were 60 or over. We should all like to work towards the abolition of the earnings rule, but we must take a realistic view about the matter. It is no good saying that it does not matter that it is going to cost money. Let us be perfectly frank. Money is in short supply and we must use it to the best possible advantage. We cannot give increased benefits in other fields where they are extremely necessary and urgent without having some system of priorities. But we are—and no doubt this is true of a succession of Governments—working towards the abolition of the earnings rule.
Until this particular Bill came before your Lordships' House, the figure was £9·50 per week and it has now risen to £13. That alone will cost something like £8 million a year. If we had raised it to £16·50 it would have cost something like £16 million. This may seem a very small amount, but when you are dealing with a substantial number of pensioners and you have to provide for long-term needs and you are giving other benefits on short-term bases, you have to have a system of priorities to see how best the money can be spent. I should have thought that the Government are perfectly right to say, "We will fix the limit at £13, which is an increase of something like £3·50, and if we can do better in the foreseeable future then we shall do it". I am sure the noble Baroness will know that there is provision under Schedule 11 of the Social Security Act 1973 for this matter to be reviewed along
672
with other benefits, but it would be quite wrong of me to hold out any hope that next year one could do even better. It comes back, as I said, to the question of making the best possible use of the money available and seeing that it goes in the right field. Having said that, I think that we all have sympathy with the view put forward by the noble Baroness, and perhaps one of these days, I hope in the not too distant future, we shall be able to meet the request that she has made.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (SALE OF WINE) ORDER 1974
5.13 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES rose to move, That the Draft Weights and Measures (Sale of Wine) Order 1974, laid before the House on April 10, be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. Since they are both measures which are designed to give the consumer greater protection, I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to speak to them together.
The effect of the Weights and Measures (Sale of Wine) Order will be that when sold in carafes for consumption on the premises wines should be sold by capacity measurement. Hence it deals principally with the sale of wine in restaurants. It will mean that the seller, instead of merely selling "a carafe of wine", as is now the custom, will be obliged to sell the wine by quantity, which in practice means he must tell the customer the quantity of wine in the carafe. It is expected that most licensees and proprietors will do this by means of a statement on the menu or wine list. It should be noted that the present proposals do not extend to sales of wine by the glass or to wine pre-packed in a securely closed bottle.
The effect of the Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dentifrices) Order will be that toothpaste in tubes shall be marked with an indication of quantity by volume. Under the existing provisions of the Weights and Measures Act pre-packed

673
toilet preparations for retail sale must be marked with an indication of quantity, either by net weight or by volume in either an imperial or metric unit or both. This flexibilty in quantity marking is an exceptional feature of the Act and was originally permitted to facilitate exports for these particular products. In the case of toothpaste in tubes it has, however, led to an excessive variety of quantity markings about which consumers have complained because of the difficulty in making quick and simple comparisons to judge value for money. After consultation with all interested parties it has been generally accepted that this quantity marking anomaly should be resolved on the basis of standardising on the use of a unit of volume.
Before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection can exercise her Order-making powers under the Weights and Measures Act 1963, she is required by the Act to satisfy herself that these proposals are generally acceptable to all organisations as appear to her to be representative of the interests substantially affected by the Orders. The proposals, which have been circulated to a wide range of consumer and trade organisations and enforcement bodies, have attracted some comment and suitable assurances have been given by the Department concerned. It is clear from the discussions in another place on Tuesday of this week that although the Minister appreciates that these Orders only partially satisfy consumer wishes in these two areas, they are based upon consultations undertaken over a period of more than a year. The Minister was, therefore, faced with a choice. On the one hand, he could go ahead quickly with some measures, meagre though they may be from the consumer standpoint; on the other hand, he could start afresh with the lengthy process of consultations required by the Act. In fact, he has chosen to compromise: to act quickly to provide an element of consumer protectection, where none exists, but at the same time to start immediately consultation procedures for further Orders that will widen the scope of the protection afforded in these specific areas. In particular, the choice of the unit of volume in the Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dentifrices) Order provides the platform
674
for legislative action on prescribed quantities. I would therefore commend these modest Orders to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures (Sale of Wine) Order 1974, laid before the House on April 10 be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD AIREDALE): Although two separate Orders have been spoken to, I have to put a separate question to the House in respect of each Order, and the question now before the House, therefore, is that the Weights and Measures (Sale of Wine) Order 1974 be approved.
5.19 p.m.
LORD ELTON: I do not want to detain the House long upon this not very momentous piece of delegated legislation, but there are two points which I should like to raise. The first of these is that the effect of the Order would appear to be minimal, because although the noble Lord has assured us that the restaurateur must tell the customer the volume of wine that he is buying he must do so only if he is asked to do so. He is only expected, but not forced, to place the information on the menu. Therefore a number of consumers will be faced with difficulties, in view of the large numbers of waiters who speak very little English but who are in service in this country. That is not, however, my main point on this Order.
I wish to raise this point with the House. I wish to comply with the direction of the Fifth Report of the Joint Committee of both Houses, which was appointed to scrutinise delegated legislation. The Report was published this morning and, in the fifth paragraph, expresses reservations on two counts about the way in which this Order is drawn up and the ambiguity thereof. It states that:
"Article 2 of the Order requires wine to be sold by retail for consumption on the premises at which it is sold only by capacity measurement except where it is sold re-packed in a securely closed bottle or"—
and then it quotes sub-paragraph (b)—
"in a glass or other vessel from which it is intended to be drunk."
The Committee found this subparagraph ambiguous. They were not clear about the meaning of the words, "other vessel", nor about whether the

675
words, "it is intended covered the intention of the vendor or the purchaser. Although the Department's second Memorandum makes the interpretation of this sub-paragraph easier, the Committee felt that the drafting was still not sufficiently clear. I should like to seek reassurance from the Government that notice will be taken of this impartial criticism, and that an early opportunity will be taken to introduce a supplementary or amending Order. It is not our intention now to hold up the Business of the House in a dramatic manner on this point, but we feel that the function of the Joint Committee is so important that it should not be ignored. I understand that I shall be able to say something about the Dentifrices Order after we have finished dealing with this Order.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, I, too, do not intend detaining your Lordships very long. The Sale of Wine Order which is before your Lordships' House seems to come conveniently before the Dentifrices Order, because I have always been told that I should clean my teeth after a meal. I well remember, as no doubt do many of your Lordships, the debate leading to the 1963 Act, especially a marvellous action by a then very young Member of your Lordships' House, my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, who succeeded in forcing an Amendment through the House on a Division, which included vodka in the list of spirits which had to be sold by prescribed quantities.
I support my noble friend Lord Elton in what he said about carafes and waiters, and I am really rather disappointed that printed information—whether on a menu or on a wine list, as the noble Lord the Minister said—will not become the law of the land. I still think that it would have been desirable to have a printed notice somewhere in the lobby of a restaurant, as is required under the Section dealing with spirits in the principal Act, which I believe has to be displayed somewhere on the premises, usually over the bar.
I agree that the suggestion which has been made is a compromise. I, too, would have liked to see the sale of wine by the glass included in this Order. If it is not, I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Jacques, and the Government will take notice of this point, which has been expressed in another place, because in
676
my view it is highly desirable. Quite a lot of play was made in another place about the various measures and the various hostelries in quite a limited area, within, I believe, the constituency of one honourable Member. But it is certainly true that one can go all over London—or, indeed, other places—and get very different measures when asking for a glass of sherry or a glass of wine.
I also wish to put in a plea that when measures are being used the advice of successive Governments should be taken, that these measures may be metric and not imperial measures. The reason for this, particularly in dealing with wine, is that owing to foreign travel most people who are customers of the wine trade—and I speak as one who is no longer a member of the wine trade, but a director of a firm of wine and spirits shippers for 17 years—are becoming increasingly accustomed to a 72 centilitre bottle or a 75 centilitre bottle, or whatever it may be, and in various countries are used to buying their wines in a 1 decilitre glass or in a half-litre or quarter-litre carafe.
5.26 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, first may I deal with the question of communication as between seller and buyer? For technical reasons associated with the wording of the Act itself and the consultation letter, it was not possible expressly to require the seller to make known in writing the quantity being offered. However, we are satisfied that the purchaser can demand to know the quantity and the seller is obliged to tell. The other point which was raised by the Statutory Instruments Joint Committee was the question of what was meant by the words, "other vessel". What was meant was a vessel used instead of a drinking glass, when the vessel itself was not made of glass; for example, plastic drinking glasses, of which there is growing use.
In regard to the quantity being known when the wine is served in a drinking glass, I would direct the noble Viscount's attention to the Statement made by my right honourable friend on Tuesday of this week, reported in Hansard of the other place on Wednesday, at column 360, when he gave an undertaking that this point would be re-examined with a view to a further Order being made for this specfic purpose. With regard to the

677
use of metric units, it is not permissible to authorise the use of metric units only, in view of the provisions of Section 10(10) of the Weights and Measures Act 1963. We should like the trade to use only metric units, but we are not in a position to say that they must use only metric units. I think I have answered all the questions that were put.
LORD ELTON: Not entirely, my Lords. I must again ask the noble Lord whether it is his intention to take some notice of the Fifth Report of the Joint Committee, beyond reciting the remarks in explanation of the Order which were made in the second memorandum from the Department in reply to the first strictures. They appear as Appendix 2 in this Report, and the noble Lord has gone no further. I submit it is not right that the recommendations of this Committee should be set aside, since it was set up specifically to guide us. I should like to receive an assurance that an amending or supplementary Order will be tabled as soon as possible, so that this piece of delegated legislation is clearer in its intention and in its operation.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Report of the Committee is under consideration and it is possible that a new order will be made to strengthen the position. But since there has to be contemplation of Orders which will go a little further, there may be some delay.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (DENTIFRICES) ORDER 1974
5.30 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dentifrices) Order 1974, laid before the House on April 10 be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House, but there is one point I wish to raise. Although the content of the Order is perfectly unexceptionable,
678
and accepted by the trade, the date on which it becomes operative is a matter of some concern which has been voiced by the trade association, the Toilet Preparations Federation. What I understand has happened is that the wheels of inquiry and consultation were put in motion as long ago as February, 1973. As we all know, these wheels were stopped in their rotation for a while by the General Election. When they moved forward again, the date of publication was delayed, obviously, but the date of operation was not. I know the trade association has been consulted, but I should like your Lordships to consider the position of the small manufacturer who has a warehouseful or a roomful of toothpaste in tubes not complying with this Order, sufficient to keep him going until September. He then finds that on July 1 he has to comply with the Order. He is faced with the alternative of either scrapping them or of undertaking the very fiddly, time-consuming and therefore expensive operation of re-labelling all the tubes in his stock. I submit it would have been easier for the Secretary of State to have altered three words on the Instrument than for the manufacturer to stick tens of thousands of pieces of sticky paper on to tens of thousands of toothpaste tubes. This may seem humorous and trivial, but to some it is a matter of considerable and vexacious annoyance.
My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House any further, but I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to this and to ask that longer notice should be given in future between publication and effect, not between discussion, because not everyone is involved in discussion, but between publication and bringing into effect.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, formal consultations took place as long ago as February, 1973, and the trade were aware of our intentions to bring the Order into effect as soon as possible. Therefore, they had ample warning of the proposed changes. The major manufacturers are already making a declaration of contents in cubic centimetres. Although there has been some resistance to a quick changeover at retail level, principally from the co-operative societies and Tesco, the Department has given adequate assurances.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND SECURITY FORCES
5.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the role of the Security Forces in Northern Ireland. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Annan, to accept my apologies if he feels that my Question to-day will in fact trespass upon the ground which he may wish to discuss next week. In the debate on the noble Lord's motion he referred to the increasing violence in Northern Ireland. I would agree with that; there is no time to lose. Since we last met here, the destruction there has continued at an ever-increasing rate. It is precisely because of this that I wanted to discuss with your Lordships the role of Her Majesty's Forces, including that of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
My Lords, I do not intend this evening to reel off a long list of towns that have been destroyed by thousand-pound bombs, markets which have been destroyed by raging fires, or talk at length about murders. I want only to say that I personally had the most heartrending day on Sunday when I attended the funeral of the lady member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. She was a neighbour of mine, and a friend. At that funeral there were between 3,000 and 5,000 very confused, very sad people. It was a most moving experience, most heartrending. For me, this is a very frustrating time, and I shall illustrate that later. This was the last of a great number of funerals which, unfortunately, I have had to attend. The facts are that people believe at the very best—at least, those who really try to believe it—that the security position as it exists to-day in Northern Ireland is the same as it was some time ago. I would not be at all surprised if the Secretary of State, Mr. Rees, probably feels that the security position is worse. I have not spoken to him, but there are many who feel that to-day it is worse. If this is what we feel, a proportion of that feeling is due to the immense fatigue which everyone feels with this constant murder and bombing.
Therefore, my Lords, when we hear various Ministers and other people in
680
authority talking about political solution, we greet it with a hollow laugh. We are past political solutions. There is only one thing to be done, and that is to put the security situation right. The situation arose of the Secretary of State for Defence making a Statement; it was very quickly corrected, but it has done an immense amount of damage. I would not like to say how much encouragement this must have given to the rebels. If one puts security right, then one can talk about almost any political solution—almost any, but not any. There is one political solution left. I feel sure that I can ask Her Majesty's Government to give me an absolute assurance on that matter, that by legalising the Provisional I.R.A. they have opened the way for the most ghastly possible solution of all, that of negotiating with those who, after all, are the only people who could in fact call a stop. It would be most courageous of Her Majesty's Government to think once more before they finally recognise these evil bodies.
My Lords, it is unfortunate that the actions of the Socialist Government—and up to date their actions have been in line with those of the previous Administration—have failed to convince the I.R.A. that they are harder on the security front than were the previous Administration. This is unfortunate, because to date their actions have in fact run very much in parallel. The I.R.A. are convinced that with one more push they can get us out. Where do we go? I welcome very much the Statement of Her Majesty's Government. It is quite wrong to go on doing the same thing only more so all over again. Therefore, a complete and absolute review is correct, and I welcome it. But I want to pinpoint quickly the actual position in which we stand by quoting from three Statements made by various Governments, which give us the problem as to why the Statement by the Secretary of State creates not only a worrying position for us in Northern Ireland, but also an encouraging position.
My noble friend Lord Moyola, sitting beside me, had to call in troops in 1969. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was asked to make a report on the position of the police within our community. The position from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, came out quite clearly, that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, our

681
sole force, and its supporting paramilitary organisation, should never have had the role of looking after our security. We in Northern Ireland were made to feel we had been wrong to look after our own security. A residue of that problem exists to-day, which makes it difficult to improve recruiting. In fact the Royal Ulster Constabulary was disarmed, and we in that Government accepted the words of the then Government and their solemn declaration that we could depend on the British Government to provide for the security of the citizens of Northern Ireland. There were many who thought we were wrong.
It is against this background that the then Home Secretary, Mr. Callaghan, was asked for certain assurances. The Government's published Statement in October said:
"It is the responsibility of the Army to protect Northern Ireland from threats against its security and in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland there should be available a local force with local knowledge capable of instant reaction.
"If the R.U.C. is to shed its para-military role the Government of Northern Ireland must be confident that other means exist."
The Statement continued:
"The adoption of the principle of an unarmed police force must in practice depend upon the assessment of the security situation as it exists in Northern Ireland, and the vital interests of the Government of Northern Ireland in defence of the province should be recognised. A fully adequate military garrison will be maintained in Northern Ireland."
That was the treaty which I considered the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom made with the people of Northern Ireland at that time. Mr. Callaghan on behalf of the United Kingdom Government gave those specific assurances.
I now pass on to direct rule, which was supported by all Parties in this House. I come to the present, with a Statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on April 4, 1974. I believe that the significance of what he said has not really borne itself fully in on the public, certainly not in Northern Ireland. He said:
"I believe the cornerstone of security policy should be a progressive increase in the role of the civilian law enforcement agencies. So long as so much of the burden is being borne by the Army, it is altogether too tempting to many members of the community to undertake
682
less than their share of responsibility and to feel that law and order is a matter for the United Kingdom Government rather than for them."
So what is the position? Lord Hunt said in 1969, and Mr. Callaghan agreed, that security is entirely a military responsibility. Mr. Heath said in 1972 and in 1973, and Mr. Wilson agreed, that law and order as a whole ought to be a matter for the United Kingdom Government. Then the Secretary of State says in 1974 that the cornerstone of security policy must be the role of civilian agencies. This is a major reversal of policy But what it does, I believe, is point to the failure, and in my view the complete failure, of successive Governments to really grasp the nettle of long-term security policy in Northern Ireland. You really cannot have a reduction in the level of the Army and at the same time a policy of using the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the role of a "bobby" in an English county. It is quite incompatible. While I welcome the change to more involvement of local forces, the Royal Ulster Constabulary must not only be trained but must be equipped to deal with the problems that are going to come to it. At the moment I see very little sign of this.
The Ulster Defence Regiment, which took over another role, must be released from the inhibitions, from the restraints, which operate against its tactical use. It is not allowed in any way to be put into a position by which it could get into a riot situation. The object of the exercise which the Government are carrying out must be to release our troops from these appalling duties in which they are placed, so that we may play our part in NATO. Nobody finds it more humiliating than I to see our troops being involved in the way they are in Northern Ireland. If I have not said anything at the moment of my admiration for the troops and for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, I know that Members of this House will know that there is nobody who holds them in higher respect for their tremendous efforts on our behalf. I therefore consider that a review at this moment is not only right but proper.
May I turn to one or two measures which I feel noble Lords may not know are necessary. The first is this—it may sound extraordinary: the Government

683
announced that the Royal Ulster Constabulary would be divided into three commands, one of which is called Southern Command, commanded by a very able policeman. But no effort, so far as I know, has yet been made to amalgamate that command with the equivalent military commander. The boundary of the Southern Command runs exactly the same as Third Brigade in Lurgan, and yet the commander of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is still up in Brooklyn. All of us who had anything to do with the war know that an absolutely vital part of co-operation must be to have the two commanders in next-door rooms and to have a joint operations room. To me this is basic. I personally can say that I started arguing in 1969 that this should be so. Throughout the whole of Northern Ireland there are these contradictions of boundaries. Where I live, in Colebrooke, we have two police areas dividing the farm, and we have four Army areas also dividing the farm. In point of fact cooperation is extremely good. But this adds immensely to the problems which exist.
I should now like to turn to the question of intelligence. The basis for all actions by the Army must be intelligence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in his Report, which has been accepted, stated that interrogation in depth was illegal; that we must accept. I find it hard to see why, when officers who are in training are subjected to that sort of thing—and a number of them appear to have come out of it very well, and they seem quite normal people after it—people who have committed heinous crimes should not be submitted to it. However, accepting that, there is a very wide gulf between what is illegal and what occurs to-day. There must be very thorough interrogation in order to defeat the I.R.A. It is no use getting incidental information from the general public without that detailed knowledge from within. At present all the troops can do is ask the terrorist's name and address and then hand him over to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If, during that time the man decides that he is going to say that he has got a stomach ache or is feeling ill, the Royal Ulster Constabulary cannot question him. If, in this process, he is then passed into the Maze, in
684
detention or any other system, he can never be brought back for questioning. In the Maze prison there lies the solution to 98 per cent. of the problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I believe this question of interrogation should be re-examined, because within these two matters which I have raised lies the ability of the Government to show their will and determination to defeat the I.R.A.
The next thing that the Army requires, in my view, and from talking to people, is full police powers. In West Belfast, in spite of what anybody may have said, there are 100,000 people who have not got a police service. The Government will tell you that there are "no-go" areas. This is correct. There is no area to which the police cannot be taken in Northern Ireland. But it is pure eyewash; they are not there providing a police service. But, I believe much more important even than that, is the fact that the troops who are there—and goodness knows! they are doing a good job in that area—do not have the power to operate in the area where the police cannot. Stolen cars are one major way by which bombs are carried. The soldier has no right to interfere in that matter. This seems to me the most appalling gap in our Security Forces and also in our general policing. After all, it must be very nice to drive a car without a licence in that particular area. I do not think many of those people want to come out of it.
The next thing I would suggest to the Government is the use of identity cards. We have suggested identity cards many times before, and we have been told, not by the Government but by other people, that this was an offence to human rights and human dignity. I notice that when certain parties wish to prevent the "lump" private enterprise in the building industry the identity card system has become fully acceptable.
The next matter I should like to raise is that of border control on unapproved roads. It is only a few years since one could not cross the Border from Northern Ireland without going across an approved road or having an approved pass. We were told two things; that that had lapsed for quite a long time, and that the aggravation, the inconvenience, of enforcing it would be greater than the

685
results from it. I believe that the inconvenience to people on the Border would be nothing compared to the inconvenience which the people in Belfast and Londonderry suffer at present under their appalling gate system, and from every other problem of bombs in Belfast day in and day out. Further, we have seen the spectacle of the 1871 Act on trial for murder revived, and I cannot see why the customs rule should not be re-used. It can be used with compassion, it can be used to cause inconvenience, and it can be used to be punishing, depending on the way it is operated. But I have the fullest confidence in the co-operation between the Police and the Army in the Border areas to use it correctly.
The next problem concerns uniformity of sentencing. There is great offence among the Army and everybody else, that a bomber in London can get life imprisonment but with us it is not so long. Further, when they get to the Maze they are able to claim special status, which means that they can wear their own clothes and have food brought in. This makes their escape easier, because they have civilian clothes. No matter what the Government say, they do not believe that there will not be an amnesty. Remember, my Lords, these are not detainees; they are people with crime after crime behind them. I believe that until this special status is abolished, any assurance from the Government on the matter of amnesty will fail to convince these people, and if it fails to convince them more people will come forward to take their place.
I want to refer quickly to the Ulster Defence Regiment and to pay great tribute to those who are in it. There is one thing wrong with the Ulster Defence Regiment, and it is a very big thing that is wrong with it; there are not enough people in it. If there is anything that can be done to improve that situation, by examination of the pay structure, car allowances or anything else, it should be done. No matter what happens they are a local force, locally involved, and no matter how much you pay them they are still cheaper than one of our own regular British Army. I appeal to the Government to do something about that. Above all else, let us have an assurance again, because it is necessary on the long-term future and on the fact that the Ulster Defence Regiment
686
is there to stay. There has been a growing feeling that that might not be so. We should like a long-term plan of the various ways, if we get peace, in which the Ulster Defence Regiment will be organised with men on certain levels of call-up.
I mentioned the question of West Belfast. In parts of Northern Ireland, we have almost reached the breakdown of civilisation. In areas such as West Belfast, we have almost to build up civilised society again from scratch. In the past, people have gradually formed their own police forces, and we have to tackle this problem in a way in which it can properly be tackled. That brings me to the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve. I believe that we are now in a very critical state in Northern Ireland. I should like to see 20,000 people in the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve. This means that we must have a massive recruiting drive, district by district. At the present moment, a Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve person is expected to serve over a wide area. Under these conditions you will be taking a risk if you do this, but we are long past the time when we must stop taking risks. We must take a risk, but they should be limited to specific areas, and going outside those areas would be breaking the law.
I do not believe that there is any man or woman in Northern Ireland, who loves his country and loathes the bombers, who could not give at least four hours a fortnight. At the present moment, that is not considered a large enough commitment for service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I believe that we must have continuous service of a minimum of four hours per fortnight, with the basic duty of security. In areas which are traffic-free because of control by the Police and by the Army, I should like to see the Royal Ulster Constabulary completely replace the Army so as to enable the Army to be free to go after the terrorists in an offensive role. These people would be supervised; the Royal Ulster Constabulary would be there. We are going to have to offend the hierarchy, because the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, as it is at present, is a very high-class force, and we shall have to lower the standards. But we are at a point where we may have to do that in order to get the mass of people to take responsibility. This must not be a third

687
force. They must be supervised by the Royal Ulster Constabulary where they are freely operating, and by the Army in the areas where they are not.
Why do people not want to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary? I can speak only of my own area, but one of the problems is that they are asked to sit an examination, and a lot of the older men are not prepared to face the humiliation of possibly failing that examination. One of the questions asked is: "Who is the President of Chile"? There may be some noble Lords opposite who know who he is to-day, but I do not see how that in any way contributes to a man's doing his duty in spotting a bomber. I consider that this examination is a farce, and it should be avoided.
The next question concerns the height limit of 5 feet 6 inches for men and 5 feet 4 inches for women. During the war, many of our ladies served with great distinction and they were a great deal less than 5 feet 4 inches. Napoleon, had he been an Ulsterman, would not have been allowed to serve Northern Ireland. I wish we had Napoleon. In my part of the world, we have one or two who do not quite make the height, and I can think of one, in particular, who, when he sees the sergeant come by, stands on a doorstep in order not to be questioned. Indeed, we had some people to my home to recruit for the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, and we had a very distinguished citizen who is not much more than 5 feet. The recruiting sergeant, who is a very able man, had turned down some other people as too small, but he said "You will be all right. You can slope arms with a revolver".
A few weeks ago I filled in the form to join the Royal Ulster Constabularly Reserve for the second time. I have here the letter turning me down. It says:
"A member of the Force should not take any active part in politics".
That is a regulation. There are two points about that; first, I do not know anybody in the North of Ireland who is not totally and actively involved in politics. Therefore, that regulation should be destroyed. Secondly—and I feel this very strongly—I would put every politician up to his neck in it and make him put his money where his mouth is. I am fed up with people who complain
688
about the Army doing this and the Police doing that, and complaining that not enough is being done. I would make sure that every politician was given the opportunity of joining the Royal Ulster Contabulary Reserve so that they could see exactly what has to be done. If you allow the leaders—and, after all, they have been elected so they must lead somebody—really to get down to it and join the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, I believe that you will get a long way. But I think you will find quite a lot of them who do not have the guts to do so. My Lords, I find it difficult to have been turned down. You will all know how difficult married life is, anyway, and if you have a wife who has a warrant you are at a double disadvantage—as I am. Because I cannot reply to other noble Lords, I should like to thank your Lordships for taking part in this debate, and I should like to say to the Government, "Give us the tools and we will do the job".
6.1 p.m.
LORD GREY OF NAUNTON: My Lords, it was for some five years the exceptional privilege of representing the Sovereign in Northern Ireland that kept me from seeking to exercise the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House. Now that I venture to do so and to ask for the indulgence that your Lordships customarily and kindly extend on such occasions, I wonder whether my Northern Ireland experience does not still inhibit me. Your Lordships ask of a maiden speaker that he shall be brief, and that is doubly appropriate to-day because I have often thought that those of us who seek to serve Northern Ireland may do a disservice by talking. Often there has been too much talk and not enough effective action in remedying what are euphemistically called "the troubles". Your Lordships also, very properly, require that a maiden speaker shall not be provocative and I learned painfully in Northern Ireland that it is almost impossible to say anything of consequence in public about Northern Ireland without provoking somebody, if indeed one does not end up by offending everybody. But if one has to make any useful contribution to your Lordships' discussions one must speak about what one knows, or tries to know about, even if it is so provocative a subject as Northern Ireland.

689
The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, has asked whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the role of the Security Forces in Northern Ireland. Whatever answer one thinks should be given to that question in its most literal and simplest form; namely, whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the distribution of what has to be done about security as between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Armed Forces of the Crown, is as it should be, no one could possibly feel satisfied that the Armed Forces of the Crown should have had for these past five years to fulfil the role that they have so gallantly had to fill. Nor, I fear, can anyone really feel that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has yet found precisely the role that it is best fitted to play in the country at the present time, or precisely the best way in which that role can be discharged.
So, my Lords, what is to be done? As so often in Irish affairs, it is much easier to propound the question than to suggest an answer to it. But unless one is merely to blunder on the solution to a problem, one must get the problem straight, and if one is to provide useful answers to questions one must be sure that the questions are the relevant ones. The opportunity given by the noble Viscount this afternoon will not at all have been wasted, nor the time of your Lordships wasted, if it serves to settle the form of the questions that the country must answer. The question certainly is not whether troops should be withdrawn from Northern Ireland and Ulster people left to settle the matter for themselves. Nor indeed is it just whether the level of reinforcement in Northern Ireland should be substantially reduced and no more done. We should all be thankful if those measures alone were to suffice.
Having regard to what the noble Viscount has said, I hope I am not offending against your Lordships' wise custom that one should not be provocative on an occasion such as this if I say straightly that I think that those of all parties and of none who have consistently said that the troubles of Northern Ireland will be settled only by both a political solution and physical security measures, are absolutely correct. A great deal of sincere and earnest effort has been put by a host of people, and is being put now, into
690
attempts to find a political solution to the troubles. I would say no more about that than that I respect those efforts but I grieve that quite obviously they have not yet suceeded. The tragic doings of evil men and, alas! of evil women of various kinds, continue in Northern Ireland and the heavy tasks of the Security Forces of all kinds are likely to continue, I fear, for a good long time to come.
The noble Viscount asks whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the role of the Security Forces, and I think he made it plain enough that in his view Her Majesty's Government ought not to be satisfied about it. Where does the tragedy lie and what is to be done about it? Elsewhere in the Commonwealth when it was necessary, as unhappily it sometimes was, to get the aid of the military forces for the civil power, the Common Law principles of England seemed to speak plainly enough even if, for the luckless soldier, it was not easy to be sure that he was interpreting them correctly. If the civil power were unable, or seemed likely to be soon unable, to maintain order or restore order if it had been lost, then the civil power might call on the military to aid them. There was a Common Law duty of the military to respond and it was for the military commander on the spot, and for him alone, to decide what action should be taken. Those principles work well enough in the sort of instance where, after the application of minimum but effective force, the situation was quickly restored to order and the duty of maintaining it would be handed back to the civil power.
Whether or not those principles still prevail in the tragically different circumstances of Northern Ireland where month has succeeded month and, wearily, year has succeeded year, and the Armed Forces of the Crown are still not just in aid of the civil power but are in fact the principal arm of the civil power in maintaining order, it is plain enough, as the noble Viscount himself has said, that this use of the Army ought not to continue any longer than can possibly be helped. It is not for this that the Armed Forces of the Crown are maintained and it is a tremendous tribute to the excellence of the soldiers, of the Royal Marines, and of the men of the Royal Air Force Regiment that they have had as much success as they have in discharging this unhappy

691
role. One question which I suggest should be asked and satisfactorily answered is: What is to be done about practical proof to the professionals of the Armed Forces that the successful discharging of their very disagreeable role will be reflected in what, if I may use a convenient shorthand phrase that your Lordships will understand, might be called "their relativity"?
Nevertheless, while we must be thankful that the professionalism of the Armed Services is as high as it is, we cannot indefinitely contemplate the use of anything like 15,000 men in Northern Ireland. What is to be done instead? It would be well if, as some have urged, the task of maintaining order, or rather of restoring order, were to be given to Ulster men and women, but again one must ask, how? The Royal Ulster Constabulary was a para-military force, and a very good force too. For valid reasons it was decided that its proper role was to be an unarmed civilian police service and there are many loyal, brave and conscientious members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who think still that that is their proper role and who would not welcome a return to the general service of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as a sort of armed gendarmerie. It is no discredit to any of them that they should think that.
Who, then, is to carry out this task? There is also, fortunately, the Ulster Defence Regiment, but here the problem is, as the noble Viscount has said, to get enough men into it. Here the dilemma is that one will not get more men into it—even, I regret, if their monetary rewards are increased—if the level of duties that they have to carry out is as heavy as it is now. No man, however fit and strong, can go on indefinitely doing his own day's work and then turning out, say, four nights a week and week-ends as well, in the Ulster Defence Regiment. But we cannot reduce the duties of the Ulster Defence Regiment until we get more men into it; so there is the dilemma.
There have been suggestions, not only that the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its reserve should be greatly increased, but that some other force or forces should be raised. It would not be right for me to go into any of the merits of this notion of a third force. I would only say that we should
692
remember—as so many seem cheerfully to forget—that it is one thing to will the creation or the enlargement of a force; it is something entirely different to achieve it. One has to recruit the men and to train them when they are recruited.
One other point which should not be forgotten is that it is not only in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in its reserve and in the Ulster Defence Regiment that Ulster men and women are already taking a great share in dealing with the troubles of their unhappy land. There are many brave people who are seeking constantly in other ways to bring about a more settled and honourably decent society in Northern Ireland. It is, for all its tragedies, a good country with many good people who, unfortunately, are not as frequently brought to public notice as unhappily it is necessary to bring to public notice the very few evil ones among them. This cannot, as we all know, draw on indefinitely, and if the Army is to be reduced in strength, and if the role of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is to continue to be that of an unarmed civilian force like that of the British "bobby", what then is the instrument by which the Government will deal with bombers, terrorists and murderers?
There was talk some years ago of a committee in London to consider this problem. Did it meet? Did it come to some conclusion? What resulted from its efforts? It is never much consolation when trouble and sorrow comes to say, "I told you so", but Great Britain now sadly knows that these troubles cannot be confined to the troublesome Irish across the water; they have spread here. What is to be done about them here? How is the peace of this Island to be preserved? It is not for the suppression of civil disorder that Britain has raised and maintained an Army in the past. We do not have in this country the kind of police force that many other countries have for precisely this role, but how are the potential subversives to be dealt with?
As I have ventured to suggest to your Lordships, these questions—and many others, some of which the noble Viscount has himself posed—have to be correctly answered if this terrible blot on the life of the United Kingdom is to be erased. If the discussion in your Lordships' House this afternoon will help to settle these

693
questions, that at least is a little start towards satisfactorily producing the answers. It is in the hope that it will do so that I have ventured to take up your Lordships' time this afternoon.
6.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, may I be humble enough and happy enough to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, on his maiden speech. It was worth waiting six years to hear the noble Lord and I am sure that we shall hear more practical and commonsense advice from him in future. May I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, for initiating this short debate on a subject which ought to bother us all, but which I regret does not. So much of the country has got into a state in which it expects death to be on the news every morning, and regards it as something to be put aside and forgotten, something normal in Ireland.
The time has come when some real effort has to be made to make everyone realise what is happening, that this week Catholics are being killed and next week Protestants will be killed and that there is a continuing battle going on. In these times of declaring interests, perhaps I had better declare mine and say that I speak as a Catholic and an ex-soldier. Therefore, I want to see justice done on all sides. I want to see Mr. Faulkner's Sunningdale power-sharing succeed, and for politics to succeed in Northern Ireland. It was interesting to hear from my noble friend that everyone was politically motivated. How can that be when people are killed every day and the country is just trying to survive?
My Lords, mainly and briefly this evening I wish to make a plea on behalf of the Forces, who by tradition may not speak for themselves. There is the question of pay—not, for heaven's sake, "danger money". Nobody in Her Majesty's Forces wants danger money. Danger they expect to face. Is it possible, perhaps, to consider some form of extra money for unsocial hours, for the discomfort in which the troops still live and for the often boring and very long hours which they spend in their work? The danger period may be great, but it is the long hours of boredom and the discomforts that are really hurting them. They very often want to go back. I met
694
two soldiers only last week who had come away from Ireland and who are hoping to be sent back; not, I hope, that a unit will be sent away from home for three Christmases running. That is an error which the Army has made and which should be put right.
Also, is it possible to get a quicker response in order to pay the sums that have been agreed for total or partial disability? The Press has carried this story very well and brought it to our notice. Both Governments must have seen the problem. Can this one now try to speed things up so that a man is paid as soon as he is disabled, without having to wait so long? Perhaps one should also ask whether those who have been disabled in previous wars could also get the increase which it is proposed those in the Services in Ireland should get. What about a man who lost a leg, or both legs, in Korea? Should he not perhaps get the same disability allowance? I urge you, my Lords, to go down to the hospital at Woolwich and see some of the disabled soldiers as they come over from Ireland. You will not forget what is going on in Ireland if you go to that hospital.
As I said earlier, the morale of the soldiers is still excellent. But I think they look with a little dismay on the fact that in future they may have only the alternatives of Germany and England to Belfast. That is a pity. They looked on Malta and Cyprus as at least a period of rest and relaxation in between the other three. May I also pay a tribute to the work of SAAFA in Northern Ireland; and, indeed, to the families who are left behind when their husbands go to Northern Ireland. SAAFA have done noble and excellent work, and in Ireland have been in some danger and difficulty. It is the wives, the mothers and the girl friends who are the deterrent to more soldiers being recruited. It is not that the young men are frightened of the dangers in Northern Ireland, so something has to be done for those three categories. SAAFA, as I said have been a great help and they are short in some Commands.
May I come back to a plea that I make every year without success, to whichever Government happens to be on the other side of the House, for T.V. in the B.A.O.R.—not for live T.V., but for the

695
things that wives and families want to see, the things that I enjoy, such as Westerns and all the English-speaking amusements and programmes that you can get taped and put on. The wives of these soldiers in Ireland are often put in fairly lonely, remote stations in Germany and their frustration and boredom could be alleviated if we had another look at the question of T.V. for the British Army of the Rhine.
The present situation is not very unusual for a soldier to be in, and he has done this kind of thing all round the world. He has been between two religions in many countries. What is so difficult now is that he is between two of his own religions. But the task is not something which it is impossible for an Army, the British Army, to perform. They are worried about some things. Too many of the people released have been in trouble again. In other words, they have seen a chap put into prison and a short time later he is out and getting into trouble all over again. I could not but agree with my noble friend who initiated the debate, that there is—at least, so the soldiers tell me—a real feeling among detainees and those sentenced to prison that an amnesty is coming, and that therefore the sentence is not worth worrying about. Ten years does not make any difference; the amnesty is coming and they will soon all be released. This must be a great morale booster for those who have done wrong deeds.
We have heard about the Ulster Defence Regiment which needs an increase in strength. It has in it members of all religions. Too many people are leaving because they have reached the age at which they are meant to leave. As they are so largely on guard duties and many would be prepared to stay, why can they not stay over the age to do the guard and static duties? Is it right that their role should be so much confined to this kind of work? Furthermore, they are in danger the whole time and they need our support so should they not also receive medals like the British Army?
There are still too many instances, so I am told—and I speak as an outsider—of incidents happening while those who cause them are in safety over the Border. I wonder now, with the good will that
696
exists on all sides, whether it is possible for there to be better liaison between the Republic of Ireland and the British Forces on the Border. Surely our object is to save lives at almost any cost. What does it matter if it is tiresome to have an identity card, if it is tiresome that in an area where two murders are likely to be committed it is said that, if necessary, there will be a curfew every night for six nights? Which is better—to be confined to your own house watching telly, or to be shot at if you go out? It is time that measures were considered to save lives, so that a period of normality may be restored where politicians of good heart may get together and where common sense may prevail.
6.27 p.m.
LORD MOYOLA: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Grey of Naunton will not think it presumptuous of me if I offer him my hearty congratulations on a very excellent maiden speech. I had the honour to serve him during his time in Northern Ireland, and I can only say that in that time he was always helpful and constructive, just as he has been in his excellent speech this afternoon. My intervention in this debate will be extremely brief, but I should like to make three points about the security situation in Northern Ireland. I have always expressed my admiration and gratitude to the British Army for what they have done and what they have put up with during their stay in Northern Ireland, and if I should say anything that sounds like criticism I want to make it quite plain that my aim is not to criticise, but to be helpful.
My Lords, until terrorism has retreated I think that there is little true hope of the Constitutional Act being supported, or indeed for the Sunningdale Agreement being supported in any way either. At this moment talk of a political solution without peace is really so much hot air. If we could get peace then the Executive would receive the support that it deserves, and I believe that a great deal of the opposition that now exists to the Sunningdale Agreement would melt away. The trouble at the moment is that we have our priorities wrong. Peace has to come first and then the political pieces will fit into place without a great deal of difficulty.

697
Certainly it is not for me to try to tell the Army how to do their job. I myself wrestled with the problem for about two years and I know how difficult it is. If I knew the answer I should be very quick to give it. But may I venture two thoughts which I think would be helpful to the Army in carrying out their task, both thoughts concerning the Republic. The first thought is, from whence comes all the explosive which almost nightly goes off in towns and villages throughout Northern Ireland? We certainly believe, and I have it on good authority, that the vast majority of it comes across the border from the Republic. I have read their regulations concerning the security of explosives and so far as they go they appear to be extremely good. But are the regulations enforced and, more important, do their security forces make any effort to stop explosives being moved about the country and particularly across the northern border? I am told that if one drives to the South one is far more likely to be stopped and have one's car searched than when one is driving to the North. That is, of course, perfectly reasonable; they are entitled to take action for their own protection. But in view of all the remarks, expressions of goodwill and co-operation which came from the Sunning-dale Agreement, surely one might hope that pressure might be applied to get them to do something about the explosives which come from the other direction.
I wonder also whether the Southern Security Forces have been asked to take part in any joint operations with the British Army. People tell me constantly, and my noble friend Viscount Brookeborough beside me knows better than I because he lives in that part of the world, that there are known terrorist hideouts along the border. If there was a joint exercise mounted by the two Security Forces on both sides of the Border, surely it would be possible to, block up the escape routes and gather up whoever or whatever might be in these hideouts. I should like to pose a question: has this kind of joint operation ever been sought? If it has been sought, what was the response? Across-border forays, and the Army's difficulties there, will only stop with genuine and firm co-operation from the South. It does not simply stop on activity along the Border. All over the country we
698
know that there are people on the run who do not live at home, but who live over the Border in their hideouts and who reappear now and again, let off a bomb somewhere or other, before disappearing again.
I am certain that an immense amount of blood and trouble could be spared if only we could achieve much greater co-operation from the Security Forces to the South. Surely there is some way in which pressure can be put on the Southern Irish Government to act more firmly. We have had recently a spate of sectarian killings. I think there have been five in the last four or five days and a further one was reported on the news this morning. One cannot deplore them strongly enough. Unhappily "deploring" does not stop them. I am certain that the bulk of this bloodshed would stop if only one could prevent people feeling that they had to take the law into their own hands. They would, I am quite certain—and I am not in any way trying to make excuses for them because I deplore in the strongest terms what they do—react sensibly so that these incidents would happen much less frequently were the perpetrators persuaded by sufficient activity from the Security Forces.
My Lords, one can advocate all kinds of ideas to try to curb terrorism. Certainly I support entirely all that my noble friend Viscount Brookeborough has said about trying to increase the numbers of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the police. I should certainly support any measures that might be produced in that direction. But there will have to be more drastic measures taken. They need not necessarily he repetitive and need not be against any one section of the population, but undoubtedly there will have to be methods used which will cause inconvenience and delays, which will probably restrict all our own personal lives. If I can get no other message across to your Lordships to-day the one that matters is simply that the people of Northern Ireland are sick, sore and tired of the whole thing, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, and I believe they will put up with any inconvenience which they could see was helping to bring an end to terrorism.
As long as everyone is treated fairly, the ever-overwhelming majority would support the Army at least in whatever

699
they may think necessary to get on top of this tragic situation. If a curfew is necessary in certain areas, then for goodness' sake! let us have one. If the road blocks, which cause a great deal of disruption, are necessary—I know there are some but to my mind not nearly enough—and more inconvenience will be caused through them, let us none the less have them. If agricultural fertilisers which are used for making bombs, need to be banned, then let us ban them. I speak as a farmer and I know that I could get along without them, at any rate for a time. But whatever the Security Forces think is necessary should now be done. I do not think that it has ever been properly faced up to the fact that we are really fighting a war over there—nice as it is and nice as it has been—and that the Security Forces have done everything in their power to avoid disrupting the civil population. I think the time has come when that should cease. I am quite certain that this view is shared by many of my compatriots. I think they would all say that it is time to have an all-out effort, to put the country to whatever inconvenience may be necessary, but for goodness' sake! let the Army and the Police get on with the job without any form of fetters.
6.38 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, it is nice to be able to follow an absolute expert who has been Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and who called out the troops originally. I should like also to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, for tabling this Question, which is very much to the point. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, who spoke with deep personal knowledge of the problem over five years. I hope that we shall hear him again. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, say that the people of Northern Ireland would put up with anything in order to obtain peace. I am coming to that aspect—it encouraged me very considerably—but I should like first to refer to some other points.
When the Army was called out it was because the police, the R.U.C., were not strong enough. Ever since, for five years, the Army have been in a police role which, as the late Marquess of Salisbury
700
said, was the wrong role. It is still the wrong role. Unfortunately, we are still following that situation and the result has been that, on top of it, the R.U.C. were disarmed and the "B" specials abolished. When I went to a police station in Belfast about a year ago no man would dream of going down the street without a Sten gun. In other words, they were disobeying orders. You cannot disarm the police there. It is not as if it was an English county. If you ask a member of the R.U.C. when he last patrolled Andersonstown, the answer is, "Not for several years". So the Army are doing it. When I visited Northern Ireland a couple of years ago I asked senior officers why they did not clean up this violence. They said they were obeying the orders of the politicians—quite rightly; I mean, the British Army is accustomed to that—and they were on the defensive. They are still on the defensive; Lord Brookeborough mentioned that. From the moment the Army goes over to the offensive and employs a few of the methods which Lord Moyola outlined, I reckon the violence will be under control in six months, probably less.
Another aggravation is this. The last time I went to Northern Ireland the senior officers were worrying about a British sergeant who was charged with murder and was due to appear before the normal courts. I think that was very wrong. These officers were hanging on; they could hardly answer my questions—ordinary, Army, military questions—because they were waiting for the verdict. It is the inalienable right of the British soldier to be tried by his peers—a court martial, in other words—and I personally think it was quite wrong to put the Army, voluntarily, under the normal courts. It is potentially sabotaging the discipline of the Army.
When Sunningdale came alone, as has been mentioned, we all thought we were near the end of the road. At least, we certainly were optimistic, and we thought Mr. Whitelaw was quite wonderful. But it had not the faintest hope, as Lord Moyola has said, of being implemented, The political and security control has continued to remain in Whitehall, and there is not the faintest hope of doing anything except the same old thing. When we come to law and order, my conclusion is that what we require is the restoration of

701
law and order sufficient to allow a workable political solution to be reached. We have just heard that there is not the faintest hope of that, but I think that is not a very good argument. Incidentally, the Army publicity is not very good at the moment. Although the Army is doing a great deal, it practically never gets a mention in the national Press.
There are one or two other factors, I believe. Time is not on our side; it is still a racial war; there are still innocent people being murdered. One thing is absolutely certain: we cannot go on like this. Admittedly, Malaya and Kenya are a long way off, but they, too, had very difficult problems. In Malaya, it took twelve years to sort things out, and I think at least three years in Kenya. But they both had a strong, armed police force, which was reinforced and strengthened while the operations were going on. For example, there were police lieutenants from Palestine—and there are plenty of volunteers in this country now. I believe the R.U.C. ought to be strengthened. Admittedly, that is not the real problem; but I so much agreed with Lord Brookeborough when he said that there ought to be 20,000 Reservists and the R.U.C. ought to be able to take over the policing role from the Army, leaving the Army to carry on the offensive. The police forces in Malaya and Kenya were there at the start; they were there right through the operations, and they were there at the end, when the British Army had left. They knew the people, as the R.U.C. know the people; and I personally think that is the right way to deal with it. It is a special difficulty, of course, that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and it voted strongly in that direction the other day.
I suggest that kid-glove methods have not been successful so far, and that we are not achieving the object. It is very easy to pose the questions—at least, comparatively easy—though it is not so easy to answer them, but I am going to suggest a plan. I personally think that we ought to appoint a High Commissioner—a modern Templer. If only Templer were 40 years younger, he would be just the chap, but am afraid he is not. But the Army is full of very good men. Such a man ought to be given full powers, and he ought to command everything in
702
Northern Ireland, including the Stormont Government. After all, Templer commanded the LEGCO in Malaya. He was perfectly competent to do that, with the right staff. Such a man ought to command the Army; he ought to command the police; he ought to run the intelligence, which I am told is quite good nowadays; and he ought to run the government Departments. He ought also to be permanently resident in Northern Ireland, and not have to come back to answer Questions and take part in debate in the other place.
The corollary of this is to abolish the position of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I personally think that is well worth doing. I am not saying, that Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Rees are not very good men, because they are; but they have, or have had, the wrong job. Then, I would put a ban on the Minister concerned—probably from the Ministry of Defence, or perhaps the Home Office, although they do not know much about it; the Ministry of Defence would be better—visiting Ireland more than once a year.
I would leave the matter to the modern Templer. The modern Templer would of course state his requirements—and, by the way, the old one got everything he asked for—and would then submit a plan pretty quickly, certainly within three months. Power-sharing should probably be continued; the police ought to be reinforced. That can be done. Army matters ought to be kept away from the normal courts; and detention without trial ought to go on—there is no question about that. You cannot get the evidence in court; we know that. That is why internment was started.
As to curfews, about which we have just heard from Lord Moyola, they should, if necessary, be imposed and identity cards issued—things like that. If necessary, I think this modern Templer should shorten the frontier in order to make quite sure that a 1,100 lb. bomb does not come in across the frontier in a farm cart or a horse trailer, or some other vehicle; and he should consider very carefully whether the people who voted for a Republic should not go to the Republic. They are in a horrid place called Crossmaglen, and in Londonderry and Strabane, I believe.

703
My Lords, that is my plan. I am not suggesting this to be awkward at all; I am suggesting it because it has been done before, and it has worked extremely well—somewhat slowly, perhaps, in Malaya because we did not apply the amount of force that was necessary. But it is only by tough methods, instead of kid-glove methods, that violence will be eliminated and peace restored—and that should be the first thing. The question I should like to ask the Government is: are they considering this action, or are they content to go on with a system which has been proved not to work?
6.50 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I first say how much I enjoyed the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton. It was most helpful and made a valuable contribution to our discussion this afternoon.
I should like to say something about the role of the Army and the impact it is having on affairs in Ulster. The Army has been in Northern Ireland for well over four years now, in considerable strength. During that time it has been called upon to act as a police force—something well outside its traditional role—and while it has always been accepted that the Army has a duty to assist the civil power and help the police force when necessary, it is also accepted that this should be done on a temporary basis. There is no sign of that in the present situation: in fact it is unlikely that the Army could be withdrawn because of the weakness, which has already been referred to, of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment. In other words, it looks as though the Army will be called on for a further considerable period to act as a policeman. This is a waste of the Army's abilities. Surely it could be used to much greater effect in a mobile role.
It seems to me that the real problem to be faced at this stage is that of intimidation. It is a difficult one to deal with and it is rather like asking, as of the chicken and the egg, which comes first—restoring law and order or doing away with intimidation so that law and order may be restored? I am convinced that until this problem of intimidation has been dealt with there is no possibility of
704
restoring law and order. Intimidation is put on the Police Force and the Defence Regiment through threats and actual attacks on their wives and families; and they must be very brave men indeed to volunteer for these Forces with these constant threats before them.
There is also intimidation of ordinary people—intimidation to carry out tasks for the terrorists, to allow their houses to be used as hideouts or stores, or as places from which to mount an ambush. And while the Government are unable to afford these people any protection, who can blame them for doing as they are told? Therefore, until intimidation is stamped out there can surely be no prospect of the restoration of law and order.
There has been no sign, that I am aware of, of an improvement in the situation over the period of the Emergency. It makes one ask whether the Army is inefficient (which I do not believe) or whether it is not being allowed to carry out its task effectively. I believe that is the reason why this Emergency has lasted so long. Perhaps I may give one example of what happens to the troops on the ground and the problems they have to face under the present arrangements. A patrol may think it has located a party of one or two terrorists. It then has to obtain permission from higher authority before it may carry out its search. Only too often, by the time that permission is granted, the terrorists have vanished into thin air. Also, there appears to be a constant instruction coming down from higher authority to the men on the ground on no account to escalate the situation—which, in my reading, means "do as little as possible".
When we come to consider what used to be referred to as the "no-go areas", as has been pointed out these are still dominated by the I.R.A. A patrol may go through them once or twice in 24 hours and it will often be met with stones or shots. I understand that in Londonderry at the moment there is three times as much shooting as there was 12 months ago. These areas quite definitely are not under the control of the Security Forces and they form good bases from which the I.R.A. are currently able to act with impunity. The feeling in the Army, as I understand it, is that as long as the men on the ground are prepared

705
to accept this situation the Government will take no active steps to reduce what they call "the acceptable casualty rate."
I should also like to raise another problem affecting patrols on the ground. Only too often a patrol may be shot at. The men are allowed to return fire only in certain clearly defined conditions. To help the patrol leader to resolve this conundrum, he is issued with a yellow card. This takes some minutes to read. Your Lordships may imagine the scene: it may be dark, the patrol is fired on and the leader gets out his yellow card and lights a torch to help him read it—thereby drawing further fire and imperilling the lives of his patrol. He may feel entitled to return the fire, but more often than not in such a case the terrorists will already have gone. There are many occasions when it is either right or wrong to fire, but there is a grey area in between where it is extremely difficult to make the correct decision, especially under such difficult conditions. Yet if the patrol leader takes the wrong decision, he may later find himself faced with a substantial period of imprisonment, as happened in a case a few weeks ago. While it is clearly desirable to protect the innocent inhabitants from indiscriminate shooting, it seems to me that the present "solution" is not a very happy one.
Many of these soldiers are stationed in Germany, which is not in any case a popular station; and when a married man is in Ulster he has to leave his family behind and is far from his own home. In addition, he is expected at present to spend some four months of the year in Ulster, living in truly deplorable conditions and unable to go out without danger of being shot at. During that period he will get one long weekend. Before and after his tour of duty, he may get leave of 14 days or thereabouts. During the rest of the year he will spend most of his time catching up with his normal training—and for a married man this involves further separation from his family.
How long can soldiers be expected to accept this situation? My guess is, not for much longer. Not for a moment do they object to doing the job itself in Northern Ireland, but they do object to not being allowed to do it properly. Some of these units are now returning for a sixth or seventh tour of duty; and I
706
understand there is now a growing tendency for men to leave rather than return to Ulster: that is, they finish their engagement and do not sign on again. Unfortunately, very few recruits indeed are coming forward to take their place. May I add my tribute to the magnificent work these men have done during their various tours of duty under the most trying conditions. We should all be very proud of them.
My Lords, what happens next—a potentially reduced Army, inadequate Police and supporting Defence regiments? It seems to me unlikely that the present role of the Security Forces can be maintained, and if things just go on we shall surely be faced with chaos. I believe that this is just what the terrorists want. There seem to be two other alternatives. The first is to withdraw the troops altogether. We have been told by many people that this would lead to a blood bath of substantial proportions, and no one can seriously want that. Furthermore, Her Majesty's Government, once having assumed direct control in Northern Ireland, have not only a legal but a moral obligation to prevent this happening, and also to restore law and order. The second alternative is to take immediate and effective action to deal with the terrorists while the Government still have the means available. They should do everything necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has just said, to restore peace to this unhappy area. I entirely agree that until this firm base of peace and stability has been achieved, there is no possibility of achieving any form of settlement. Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will adopt the course advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne.
7.2 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships and as a third division speaker, as it were, I often find many people have said what I had hoped to say. To-night I am probably the first person who has spoken on this Question who has no personal experience of what is happening in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I am speaking very much as the ordinary reader of a newspaper, the viewer of television and the listener to the radio sees the situation in Northern Ireland. But I probably have a greater benefit than many people, as I have listened to a number of speeches in your

707
Lordships' House which conveyed far more information to me than is normally put over to many people through the normal media. I should particularly like to say how much I appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, to-night. With what great power he put over his points! I much appreciate and understood them, and I hope that we shall hear much more from him in the future.
The situation which appears to have arisen at the moment is that many people in this country are starting to look on Northern Ireland as something which is not part of this country. It is becoming a situation such as existed during the troubles in Malaya, Aden or any other place where there has been disruption. As a result, an attitude is growing which is coming very much to the same crystallisation: whether we like it or not, the British troops are wasting their time and should be withdrawn. I am not one who joins in this view, but it is something which the Government, and anybody to do with Northern Ireland, must realise is happening. We are virtually appearing to be facing a fight for liberation by both sides with the unfortunate troops having the role in the middle. From what has been said to-night, particularly by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, with whom I so much agree, the troops are hampered all the way round in doing the duty for which they were really sent there. I agree with his views about the idea of a corporal in the British Army having to switch on a torch to read a yellow card before he can take a shot at somebody who has "had a go" at him. That must be the most devastating situation a soldier could ever find.
The soldiers are now the targets on both sides: they went in as friends, but are now disliked by everybody. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne: a soldier is a soldier; he is taught to be a soldier and not a policeman. For a short time you can use a soldier in a policing role, but you cannot continuously, year after year, bring him back to the police role without damaging his primary funcion which is to be a soldier. He is not trained to be a policeman; he is trained to be a soldier and to be a part of the Defence Forces of this country. His prime object is to defend us. I cannot see how the Army, acting as it is at
708
present, can be doing anything except losing efficiency. You cannot keep gunners and tank crews as policemen for year after year, and expect their efficiency to continue. As the noble Marquess said, when the troops go to Northern Ireland they are separated from their families. A happy soldier must have a happy family; that is something those of us who were in the Army know. If year after year, you take soldiers from their families for four-and-a-half months at a time, and then put them on some intensive training for their normal role, you will get unhappy families and unhappy soldiers. The way the morale of the soldier has borne up in Northern Ireland has been magnificent. I should like to pay particular tribute to the officers of the Army who have kept the morale and the momentum of the soldiers going during this terrible period.
I feel that we have to find a proper role for the Army. The Government are faced with the problem—about which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will be able to give some help—of making sure that the Army will be able to do a proper job and get a grip of the situation so that all this turmoil can cease. Unless some proper role is seen to be given to the Army, quite apart from the political side, there will be an increasing restiveness in the people of England to have their Army withdrawn.
7.9 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I must apologise for intruding in what has become a private debate of the Conservative Party. My diffidence is to some extent diminished by my finding myself in almost complete agreement with the last speaker. His diagnosis is right; there is a growing feeling in Great Britain, and among the Army, that the troops in Northern Ireland have tried to do a job which is without end and people are asking for the reason why. I also entirely agree with him and indeed with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that unquestionably continued service in Ireland has a very bad long-term effect upon the Army. For better or worse, Mr. Healey, I think most unwisely, reintroduced a short-service engagement in the Army. I do not believe for a second that we can have a voluntary Army based upon short service. It has never seemed to me that it involves a difficult problem. If you enlist 100 men a year and they

709
serve on a three-year engagement, you will have an Army of 300; and if you enlist for a period of seven years you will have an Army of 700. It is no more complicated than that.
There is also the undoubted fact that the supremacy of the British Army in 1914 was not due to its intellectual capacity; it certainly was not due to the intellectual capacity of its officers. But it was due to the fact that they were long-service soldiers and they had been taught to shoot for their proficiency pay; and sixpence a day meant a great deal in terms of beer and a trip to the pictures with their best girl. The result was that, from Mons to the Marne and from the Marne back, and when they died in their tracks at Ypres, they out-fought, out-marched, out-disciplined and out-moraled the Kaiser's Army. They fought them to a standstill. But the troops of 1914 who gave their lives for their country without any question did exactly what the troops in Ireland are doing: they did their duty. No higher tribute needs to be paid than that in fact they did their duty. As I think I can claim without any shadow of a doubt that I have more service in the ranks of the Regular Army than anybody else in this House at present, and I also possess a decoration that no other Member of either House has ever won, a Long Service and Good Conduct Medal, entitlement to which is eighteen years of undetected crime. I believe I speak with some authority on this particular point.
That brings me to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. He, too, is a regular soldier. But he made the most surprising statements, astonishing statements. It is the inalienable right, he said, of a British soldier to be tried by court-martial and to be tried by his peers. Has he ever been an other ranker tried by a court-martial? Trial by his peers—by a selection of officers of whom he knows nothing? Is that trial by his peers?
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, perhaps I ought to explain that by "his peers" I really meant other soldiers.
LORD WIGG: Well, my Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven for not knowing what the noble Lord meant. I can only judge by what he said. He said it was the inalienable right of the British soldier to be tried by a court-martial, to be tried
710
by his peers. Neither statement is true. He has no inalienable right to be tried for a civil offence by a court-martial. If the noble Lord will consult the Army Act—and if he has difficulty I shall be glad to help him—he will find that in fact the civil law must be paramount. That is the trouble. In Northern Ireland the civil law has broken down, and the private soldier, the soldier on his beat in Northern Ireland, is required to conform to a law which does not exist. He is the only person conforming. Nobody else is. This is the trouble. And of course it was always bound to be a trouble.
I well remember that on the night Mr. Callaghan took the decision, presumably in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, to put the troops in, he said, "We haven't done so badly so far." I said, "No, you haven't made a single mistake. You have put them in. But what I should like to ask you, Governor, having put them in, is how do you get them out?" They have gone in many times before. Again I would say that I am astonished at Lord Bourne. I thought better of him.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment to explain? Would the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, agree that it is quite wrong—at least, I think so—for a sergeant to be had up for murder in the civil courts?
LORD WIGG: Again, my Lords, I am not wise enough to pass judgment. I am not gifted with that insight which the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has to pass judgment on a set of circumstances about which I know nothing. I deplore the fact that a British soldier is held to account for something that has arisen in the course of his duty. I believe that the case which has been referred to is still sub judice and under consideration and I therefore would say nothing about it, except that I hope it will be dealt with to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Before the General Election I initiated a debate on an Unstarred Question, on the paramountcy of British troops and the civil law in an exercise at Heathrow. At all times from the 17th century onwards the civil power has been paramount, and that must remain so. The difficulty in Ireland is that the troops there are subordinate to the Common

711
Law, to the civil power, and the civil power is not affected. I am going on to point out that this should have been thought of before the troops were put in. I think Mr. Callaghan missed one of the chances. What should have happened at the moment when the troops were put in was the suspension of Stormont. The noble Lord, Lord Moyola, should have been sent on leave. It was at that moment that the great chance came, and it was missed. I think again that Mr. Heath boxed it, as he boxed everything else, when he called an election in Northern Ireland and put paid to any chances of Mr. Faulkner's succeeding.
I have considerable respect for the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, but would he include in his reading list the history of S.O.E., published I believe by the Stationery Office, and read what the Germans tried to do in Northern France. No holds were barred so far as they were concerned because they had behind them the S.S. and the concentration camp, torture and all that went with it. They did everything that has been called for tonight. They had their personal passports; they had the road blocks; the concentration camps. Oh. yes, the Generalissimo is in command. They took all the measures for complete suspension of every civilised right. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has called for. This is roughly what we did in South Africa, but there was a harvest to be reaped. It is reaped in terms of the Nationalist Party and apartheid, which spreads from the natural stupidity of the Conservative Party.
LORD BOOTHBY: Oh no, my Lords.
LORD WIGG: Oh yes. The noble Lord is the odd exception, but I refer to the rest of them—highly civilised men but always stupid, never being able to see that power does not necessarily belong where it seems to belong. That is the hallmark of a Tory. He always thinks that power should be where it seems to be; and he is so often wrong.
I happen to have served in Ireland a long time ago, nearly fifty years ago. And everything that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, would have done was done by the Black and Tans. How many troops were there? Seventy thousand. How many men did Michael
712
Collins command when the settlement was reached? Twenty-seven. Twenty-seven determined men held up 70,000 British troops, plus the Black and Tans, recruited at very high rates of pay. They raped; they pillaged; they roadblocked; they did just what the hell they liked. And they created such hatred for Britain and for the British troops and for all that Britain stands for—the heart of the troubles in Northern Ireland to-day. Whatever you do or do not do, you are going to have to answer at the bar of world opinion; and if that does not judge you, you are then going to have to answer at the bar of history. You can sow, but what you sow you will reap.
Unfortunately, my reading of the situation is that in Ireland the extremist always wins, just as in the 1920s a settlement came about between Michael Collins on the one hand and the arch-Conservative, Lord Birkenhead, on the other. I do not know whether this is true—I have heard it so often, but perhaps some of those who are younger than me have never heard it—but it is said of Lord Birkenhead that when he signed he said, "I am signing my political death warrant", and that Michael Collins said,"And I am signing my death warrant". And he was dead within six weeks.
LORD BOOTHBY: Hear, hear!
LORD WIGG: That fact needs to be remembered. I do not understand the utterances of the political leaders of both Parties who say that they will not talk to the extremist. I would. To-night we have heard from the Benches opposite that all that matters is to save lives. All that matters to me is to get the British troops out of Northern Ireland. I should like, as a civilised being, to see the Irish problem satisfied. It can only he satisfied when the extremists of both parties sit round the table together and come to agreement. You cannot impose moderation; but that is what you are using the Army to do, and I protest. We tried it in Malaya, but in very different circumstances. There was an open frontier. There was the infiltration of the Communists from the North. If the Chinese Government had determined that a different conclusion should have been reached in Malaya, we should not

713
have won. We won in Malaya because of our Armed Forces and the determination of Field Marshal Templer. All those things came about there. But they do not exist in Northern Ireland.
What, therefore, would I do? I would face the facts. I am not prepared to let the British Army be whittled away through the falling-off of its recruitment campaigns. I would say to the people of Northern Ireland, "You have got until June 1, 1975, to settle your differences. We cannot settle them for you. If, however, by June 1, 1975"—that is not necessarily an arbitrary date; we can make it six months, or a year, or three years later—"you have not settled, then the British troops are coming out of Northern Ireland". If you do not do that—and it is a long enough delay—there will not be any British troops to send to Northern Ireland, because you will not have an army. That is the basic fact. The British Army is being destroyed through being asked to carry out a task that is impossible.
It has been said in this debate that soldiers are not policemen. They are not, and they cannot do a policeman's job. That is why the Wehrmacht failed in Northern France; that is why the Wehrmacht failed throughout Europe. A soldier cannot do a policeman's job because he is not trained to do it; his is a different sort of job. If, though, you turn round and say that the Army is coming out by a given date then it is for the civil authority, the authorities in Northern Ireland or the authorities here, to build up what is required. You require a gendarmerie that is there on a continuous basis and that does not move by units. They would be trained for that particular job. That seems to me to be the utter reality of the situation. It seems to me that in the long run there is no other possibility at all. It is like trying to grow sweet peas at the North Pole to imagine that there is any possibility of reaching a political solution through the use of military methods. No military methods can themselves last in the long run. That is the whole history of the modern world.
The other solution is not to wait as long as six months, or a year, or eighteen months, or three years, or whatever the period happens to be, but to turn round and say—I believe that the people of this country are already beginning to say it,
714
and I agree here with the noble Lord who spoke immediately before me—"Well, we will opt out. We will hand the problem over". So many of my friends in the Labour Party always want to hand their problems over to UNo—perhaps not so much to-day as before the war, when they were all for passing resolutions to hand problems over to the League of Nations. They say, "Let us have a mixed force there; let us have the Russians there and the Americans there. Let them come in and try to solve it". But it cannot be solved by British troops, and I, for one, am not prepared to go on being dumb on this particular issue, because of my service in the Army. I can never repay, except by raising my voice on occasions like this, the debt of gratitude which I owe to my service in the Regular Forces. I served in the ranks. It is very commonplace to ask what I should like Ito do if things were different and if I could start again. The answer is that I would do it all over again, and that is why I speak to-night.
7.27 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the Question which is put to the Government by my noble friend Viscount Brooke-borough raises issues which are literally a matter of life and death to the people of Northern Ireland. It is partly because of this that the debate this evening has claimed a considerable list of speakers—not least my noble friend himself and the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, both of whom on many occasions come over, at not a little inconvenience to themselves, to take part in the debates in this House. And, of course, in the debate we have had a notable maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton.
My Lords, the noble Lord set himself the task of trying to state what the problem is, and his wide experience has enabled him also in his speech to put several telling questions. However, on one point I would, with respect, differ from the noble Lord, Lord Grey asserted that it is almost impossible to say anything upon this subject without provoking somebody, or even offending everybody. I do not think that that applied to the noble Lord in his speech this evening. During his service in Northern Ireland, the noble Lord, Lord Grey, and his wife, attracted, I know, widespread friendship because of their obvious concern for the life of the Province, and I know that subsequently

715
at a variety of functions there has been ample evidence that the noble Lord never forgets his friends and that the people of Northern Ireland do not forget him. It has surely been wholly right that he should have spoken as he has done today, and I know that the House will wish that the noble Lord will take part in our debates again without too long an interval.
My Lords, because the Security Forces are combating the terrorism within the boundaries of the United Kingdom it is, I think, inconceivable that the reply of the Government this evening can be in the affirmative; and surely this will continue to be the case until the Security Forces receive their just reward for their tenacity by seeing peace return to Northern Ireland. At the same time, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, may be able to give the House some information about some of the successes of the Security Forces.
My Lords, I realise that the picture is complex. I do not live in Northern Ireland, and I accept what my noble friend Viscount Brookeborough has said, that recently there has undoubtedly been a tragic escalation of violence there. But it appears to me that violence in the Province habitually tends to ebb and flow as terrorists seek to evade the vigilance of the Army and the Police. If I am right it is, I know, cold comfort for a shop owner in, for instance, the Border area to know that violence in his town has suddenly increased because terrorists are finding the pace too hot elsewhere. But what I think is important, none the less, is that when possible the initiative should lie with the forces of law and order and should be seen to do so. Of course the importance of the initiative is clearly demonstrated when arrests of key men are made, such as the re-arrest of Ivor Bell some 10 days ago.
But the recent current level of violence is bound to provoke the reaction which has come from all Members of this House: that every possible support must be afforded to the Security Forces in their difficult task. May I therefore put one or two questions about the R.U.C., the U.D.R. and the Army? On April 4 in another place, in Answer to a Parliamentary Question, the Minister of State gave figures for the strength of the Royal Ulster Constabulary since 1971. I wonder
716
Whether the Government can indicate how the present strength of the R.U.C. matches up to the target strengths? I believe I am right in saying that recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary is encouraging, but entrants to full-time service are below target figures. If I am right in this, it is vital that new recruitment plans, also announced by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons on April 4, should be successful. Let us face the fact that when a settled peace can be achieved, then upon the police will depend the day-to-day standards of law and order; and for this to be achieved the R.U.C. must surely attract support from the whole community in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the Government will consider very carefully the constructive suggestion of my noble friend Lord Brooke-borough when he spoke about the R.U.C. Reserve. I hope that the new nonresidential cadet scheme will attract not merely recruits but Roman Catholic recruits as well. I am sure it is of the utmost importance that all sections of political life in the Province should combine to plan the policing for the future.
Paragraph 17 of the Sunningdale Communique foreshadowed the formation of an all-Party committee from the Assembly to examine how best to introduce effective policing throughout Northern Ireland. Can the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, tell us how far the formation of this committee has proceeded, and will members of the United Ulster Unionist Council form part of this committee? After all, my Lords, in company with others—and, I think it is fair to say, probably feeling even more deeply than many other people—members of the D.U.P., the V.U.P. and the official Unionist Parties have every reason to want to be included in the making of plans for the future of the R.U.C. I very much hope that when the Order for the reconstitution of the police authority is laid before Parliament, the members of all Assembly Parties will be included among the Assembly element on the reconstituted authority.
Because the only predictable aspect of the violence in Northern Ireland is the unpredictable, the role of the Ulster Defence Regiment assumes increasing importance; and I think this even more after having listened to those who really

717
know, like the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, and my noble friends who are seated behind me. This is because the local knowledge and involvement of all men and women in the Province is essential for the defeat of terrorism, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Brookeborough that it was particularly tragic to read of the recent attack on the U.D.R. headquarters at Clogher and the shooting of Mrs. Eva Martin in that attack, because it is women like Mrs. Martin who, among their other duties, have been saving lives and protecting property by participating in the long hours of searching that are so often a part of life in Ulster to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, referred to the dilemma which lies between the recruitment needs of the U.D.R. on the one hand, and the heavy demands which are made by U.D.R. duties on the other; and I suppose there is absolutely no doubt that, although they cause difficulties, the hours of night patrol, week-end duty and training which U.D.R. volunteers carry out are none the less vital to security in Northern Ireland. So may I add my voice to that of the noble Lord and also to that of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, and ask how the Government see the recruiting situation for the Ulster Defence Regiment to-day? My noble friend Lord Brookeborough has, in fact, asked the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, some specific questions on points in this area, but I think the House is anxious to know the view of the Government about recruitment to this vital force.
Finally, there is, of course, the role of the Armed Forces. Nearly five years of continuous service at full stretch and—as my noble friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley has said—many long hours of duty have accustomed our soldiers to the more disagreeable aspects of service in Northern Ireland: to the accusations when restraint is interpreted as "appeasement" and when firmness in the face of danger is dubbed "harassment"; to the testing period which some communities see fit to accord to a newly arrived unit; to the grim realities of intimidation, so that in some areas a word of thanks to the Army is rarely risked for fear of a bullet through the legs or in the back. Yet when the Secretary of State for Defence recently made some remarks
718
which were interpreted as a threat to withdraw troops, it swiftly became clear that the role of the British Army in Northern Ireland is widely accepted for what it truly is—a genuine attempt in the most adverse circumstances to make the best of a bad job.
So I ask the same question that distinguished Members of the House have asked this evening—what can be done to finish the job? I think it is natural that we should seek solutions, but in seeking them let us remember that if a recent poll is to be believed nearly 70 per cent. of the population support the concept of the sharing of power, and I believe that after nearly five years of war weariness there is a deep desire in Ulster to give the new Executive a chance to succeed. The appalling level of violence, of which my noble friends have spoken at first-hand to-day, is now perpetuated by gangs of utterly ruthless men and women. My own impression (for what is is worth) has always been that the soldiers on the ground appreciate that the prime need is to prize apart any bond of sympathy which may exist between terrorists operating in an area and the local population, and in this the Army has met with a success which I doubt that any other military force in the world could have achieved.
Limited though this policy is, by pursuing it the Army has made it possible for the slogan, "Ulster is still in business" to reflect the really extraordinary industrial and commercial success of the Province during recent years. In seeking solutions, therefore, let us acknowledge what has been achieved; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Grey, said, let us acknowledge the work of reconciliation which the understandable, but regrettable, pressures of time on the media do not always allow us to hear about frequently enough. Let us also recognise that if there were to be indiscriminate military action—which there has never been in our time in Northern Ireland—it would endanger the economic climate of the Province, which would have the very gravest consequences—not only economic, but social. Of course there is the other supposed solution of sudden, precipitate, total withdrawal. As the noble Lord, Lord Grey, and my noble friend Lord Salisbury have declared, this is no solution. It would feed the aspirations of the I.R.A. and, inevitably, it would play upon the natural

719
fears of the majority, and of many Roman Catholics as well. In seeking new initiatives, the operations of the Security Forces must surely be supported by firmness in adhering to existing policies.
The previous Government pledged themselves to end detention; in the words of the Sunningdale Agreement, "as soon as the security situation permits". My right honourable friend the former Secretary of State demonstrated his good faith by making some 65 releases at Christmas, but that was not an indication of an open-ended commitment. My right honourable friend subsequently said that he bears the responsibility for those releases, and that responsibility requires me now to ask the Government: what evidence exists of any of those released returning to terrorism? Surely it must be in the light of such evidence that the timing of future policy should be decided.
My Lords, I believe that peace will return to Northern Ireland only when the terrorists cease to find a refuge on either side of the Border. The noble Lord, Lord Moyola, and others have referred to this view. The prime hope of the Sunningdale Agreement was that the Law Enforcement Commission would agree really effective means of dealing with the terrorists, whether apprehended in the North or in the South. An initiative could just emerge from the recommendations of Lord Justice Scarman and his Committee. I must say that I welcome the opportunity which has been provided to-day by my noble friend's Question to urge swift publication of the Report of the Law Enforcement Commission.
7.41 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE): My Lords, this is not a very easy Question to answer. It is the custom in this House for an Unstarred Question to be brief, for there to be perhaps one intervention, a brief reply, and for the subject to be closely confined to one topic which is examined in depth. I know that this is what the noble Viscount Lord Brookeborough, wanted to do. I should like to say at once that he and other speakers have been far more successful in doing this than I thought possible because, quite seriously, we have
720
spent the last two hours talking about the subject of the Question, which is very unusual in this House and still more unusual elsewhere.
My Lords, I think I must begin my reply by defining the role of the Security Forces. Their role is to maintain law and order. The Army is in Northern Ireland to support the police and the civil powers in maintaining the fabric of society in a part of the United Kingdom. This was neatly put in The Times a couple of days ago, as follows:
"Its realistic target has been to lower the level of violence and then contain it so that a reasonably normal life can carry on in the Province while politicians sort out the longterm answer".
In spite of what has been said tonight. I do not feel the least embarrassed in saying that that is still the Government's objective. It was the objective of the last Government, and it is ours.
One must add here that the course we hope to see pursued is that of Sunning-dale. It is interesting that only two speakers mentioned it—the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley. The bipartisan policy here is not to give up hope of a political solution while Sunning-dale is floating. Sunningdalc is not sunk yet. My business as a junior Minister is to try to see that it does float, and I know also that the business of my seniors and the entire apparatus of the Northern Ireland Office is to try to do the same. I do not have to explain to your Lordships because we are not to-night discussing general politics, but if Sunningdale did float, it would be a very much better answer than that of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, on the one hand, or of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, on the other. If it does not float, of course, we shall have to think again.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I took the words out of the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, when I said that we were very pleased about Sunningdale and hoped it would succeed, but, in his words, that was not likely.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I accept that. What I do not accept is the prophecy of the noble Lord, Lord Moyola, at this stage. I think he will be proved wrong, although no one can express certitude;

721
it is a tricky business. That is what we are trying to do and will go on trying to do.
My Lords, having said that, your Lordships will see that my position is not very easy. A great many of the things which have been said which are critical of the present situation are perfectly true. To start with, the description of the situation as an extremely unhappy one is true, of course. The position of our troops there is extremely difficult. I agree absolutely with what the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, said about their morale. It is absolutely at the top. It is astonishing. One must say that if the turnabout that they have to experience in Northern Ireland can be spaced out a little further, this will be a stimulus and not a detraction from recruiting. I think this is certainly the view of the G.O.C. and the Secretary of State for Defence. I hope it is true. The dilemma is always to judge the most effective level of force and activity which will maintain selective pressure on the terrorists, and which will gain the support of all the communities while not interfering unduly with the life of the people.
My Lords, I should like to say, because some of the things the noble Lord said referred to this, how glad we were that the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, found time from a life of public service to come here at last and make his maiden speech. It was extremely impressive. If I may say so, it was of a proper length and it was not controversial in any way that affects any of us here. We hope to hear a great deal more from the noble Lord. One of the points he made which struck me was that there are very many good people and very few evil people in Northern Ireland. This is true. This is really the ground on which we are working—not, at the moment, with conspicuous success. Of course, the Army fights at a great disadvantage because it must be subject to the law. It is their safeguard. Probably to his surprise, I shall here agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. There is no question whatever about the Army in a civilian role, such as it might be anywhere else. If a sergeant shoots someone in the course of duty, he is subject to the civil law. This is the law of the land and the law of Northern Ireland. Whethet the circumstances are such that it ought
722
to be altered is a question which I shall not deal with because, as the noble Lord said, the matter is sub judice. It is an awkward situation, but the law is very clear. The terrorists are not subject to any law. They give themselves military titles, regard themselves as soldiers at war, and that makes things easier. Their kind of war disregards all the niceties of law and order and the requirements of the civil administration. They are subject to no restrictions.
My Lords, I shall not detail the indiscriminate and very beastly murders of which we all know, but it might be worth remarking that since January 1 there have been 57 "knee-cappings" in Northern Ireland. As your Lordships may know, "knee-capping" is when you put a pistol behind the knee and shoot from behind the knee-cap. It is one of the most painful wounds one can have, and the victim is lame for life. It is not yet quite so bad as the Capone days, when they put a man in a petrol bath and lit it. It is a bit better than that, but getting jolly near it. We are dealing with something very nasty, and let there be no mistake about that.
The Army has to be flexible. In the last month or two, as one or two noble Lords have mentioned, there has been an increase in incidents of terrorism, but the general level of violence (although it does not seem like it to me) is less that it was a year ago. In the first four months of this year, there have been 1,247 shooting incidents. During the same period last year there were twice as many-2,649. So at least the shooting is halved. This is not high, although it is still an appalling number. One of the results of troops being more effective in relation to shooting is that the terrorists have turned to bombs, where we have achieved no reduction. There has been an increase of nine, but only nine, bombing incidents, from 299 to 308 in the same period; so that the increase in bombing is not great. But they find new ways of doing these things all the time. As your Lordships know, the proxy bomb is a new idea and it is extremely difficult to deal with.
The soldiers have taken on this dreadful job of protecting the innocent majority with tremendous courage, and I think all of us here and in the whole nation cannot too often say—and everybody has

723
said it to-night—how grateful we are to them and what a difficult job we think they have to do. I should like here to stress the fact that I believe it really is a majority—this again is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grey—of the Northern Ireland population who want to be protected and who accept the role of the Army with gratitude. The soldiers have been subjected to grievous provocation and serious loss and injuries but they have stood up to these dangers without reacting violently in a way that they should not, except on one or two very rare occasions which must happen everywhere.
Because of the feeling that so many noble Lords have expressed, that this cannot go on forever in exactly this form, the Secretary of State called for a security review last month into the role of the Army in the towns, in the rural areas and on the Border, and this review is going ahead. It is, I think, nearing completion, together with the Ministry of Defence, and clearly nothing I say must anticipate its conclusions. In the meantime, the Secretary of State announced that there would be some reductions. The first reduction is the withdrawal of one unit, which will come from the Londonderry area. This is due quite soon, if I remember rightly. Whether and when it will be possible to make any further reductions remains for consideration, but we must aim—I think various noble Lords made this point—at the minimum number of troops there which the needs of the situation require and combine that with the maximum degree of flexibility and speed in response to change.
VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? If this reduction in troops is going to occur in Londonderry, it must, therefore, be that their role is being replaced by other forces. Who is replacing them, and what training have they been given to make them suitable for that role?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the R.U.C. are increasing their numbers in Londonderry. The chief constable is content that he can gradually ease forward and do more and more in the difficult areas, of which we know there are about three. We are satisfied that this makes sense. These things cannot be done at once; they have to be
724
worked in slowly. A great deal of notice has been given. Preparations are being made. There will be difficulties, but we think this will work.
Noble Lords will remember that not long ago, just before Easter, a special operation was mounted which was extremely successful. There had been an appalling weekend of bombing and the spearhead unit which is always in reserve in England was brought over and had three or four great successes in actually finding the materials of major car bombs on the way up. That is the kind of policy that we think will have to be pursued. It can be done as often as necessary. As I said before, the lower level—provided it is a marginally lower level; and that is all that is suggested—of troops will make for a much more satisfied body of troops there, because the tour of duty will not come round so often, and I think to professional soldiers the stimulus of an active service area from time to time is probably not unacceptable.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, when the noble Lord uses the phrase "active service", I take it that he is just using it as a form of words? He is not suggesting that active service is going to be introduced?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, it is a form of words; perhaps I used the wrong ones. One is invariably misunderstood by somebody, as somebody has said already, and I choose my words with care. But I hope that the Prime Minister's Statement on April 25, that the Army will stay in Northern Ireland in whatever strength the fulfilment of its task requires, is clear enough for anyone to understand. The reduction I have already referred to is quite small, and it is absurd that every time a marginal change of this kind is made the cry should go up that the Army is pulling out. My Lords, it is not. The Government do not accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, at this stage, that a date should be given. We are not giving a date. We are saying that it will stay there as long as the situation demands it.
Of course, this has to be combined with a gradual increase in the role of the police, and this involves recruitment. There are great problems about this, but

725
great efforts are being made. It involves questions of pay for the Army and the R.U.C., and indeed the U.D.R. Unfortunately—perhaps fortunately for me—all these matters are under review at the moment and I really cannot say anything. But I will say that the Secretary of State for Defence is speaking on Monday in another place; I think he will have something to say about the Army side of the question and there is a clear linkage even if not an actual one between the two sides. The real trouble is that the community must accept that the Forces are trying to restore law and order on their behalf.
There still are, as noble Lords have said, areas where the police are not welcome and where, in fact, they get shot at if they go. These are getting fewer in number, and the first place that we are trying to ease into is Londonderry. There are other places where at the moment the Army must stay. But there are things, I think, which the people themselves can do. Many noble Lords have asked for more recruitment for the R.U.C. and the R.U.C. Reserve. I feel that every able-bodied man and woman should ask themselves very carefully why they should not join rather than leave the job to their neighbours.
The difficulty is partly sectarian, as we all know. The proportion of Catholics has dropped over the last four or five years from quite a high figure to quite a low one. I would rather not quote figures because I do not have them written down, but I think the proportion is between 4 and 8 per cent. now and it used to be something like 20 per cent. This is a very serious situation and one of the reasons why things are not going to get better without some kind of démarche between the quarrelling parties. In the end you will have to have it. The shopkeepers and others can do a good deal more; we are urging them to do a good deal more, and we are threatening to dock compensation if they do not do a good deal more to protect themselves both by searches and by having detectives and people about and by protection of various kinds. This has to be done. It is really impossible for the Army to deal with the girl who brings an incendiary bomb in a cigarette case into a place like Woolworths or the equivalent. It is not on. It has to be done by the people themselves.
726
There have been so many questions asked that, as this is an Unstarred Question and I have already been on my feet longer than I intended, I have notes of the points that various noble Lords made and it would probably be better if I wrote to them, rather than try to deal with them now. The most formidable proposals were made by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and I think that they were formidably contradicted by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I do not think that I shall join in that controversy. We do not feel that we have reached the stage of either Lord Pourne's solution or Lord Wigg's solution. I hope we never do, but, doubtless, if we do these matters will be seriously considered.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, will the Minister give way for a moment? May I read into his answer that the British Government are content to go ahead with the present system?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Lord can read exactly that into the present answer. While we are trying to produce a political settlement by means of Sunningdale, that is our policy and there is no variation from it. In the immediate future, this is the hope which we hold in front of ourselves. Irish politics are so tremendously interwoven, that there really is no doubt that if you could get Sunningdale (which I am not saying will be easy) what would follow from that would be the kinds of things for which noble Lords were asking. For example, at the moment you cannot get the S.D.L.P. to co-operate with the police liaison committees, until the police authority is set up in the South as a result of Sunningdale. Everything hangs on everything else.
I beg noble Lords, who I know are suspicious of Sunningdale and some of its implications, not to give away this—I must not say "last chance" but, at any rate, late chance without being very sure that their objection to, for example, the Council of Ireland is really worth dying for, if we could get the kind of co-operation from the Catholic local population without which this problem could never be solved. I and my colleagues feel deeply about this aspect.
I believe that there has to be a bit of give; I see terribly little of it, but there

727
has to be some. That is what we are hoping for. These matters are all tied up one with another, but I do not think there is any reason to despair. A number of suggestions have been made tonight which will be looked at very closely. As your Lordships can imagine, most of them—such as identity cards and curfews—are always in everybody's mind as a possibility in certain situations, but at the moment they have not been thought worth while.
Co-operation on the Border is clearly most important, and we are all working for it. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the Army's role is to contain the violence, and it is certainly doing that. Some noble Lords said that the violence was increasing; that is not the position overall. There has been a local increase, but it is not increasing as a graph. The Army's role is to contain violence while the long-term solution is being sought. The Army is doing this, and it will go on doing it for as long as may be necessary.

  OIL RIG PERSONNEL
  OIL RIG PERSONNEL