Question again proposed,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to declare the law as to the legislative powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland under section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, so far as relates to Her Majesty's forces and in particular to the conferment of powers, authorities, privileges or immunities on them.
The second point made by the right hon. Member for Devon, North was his belief that the Bill was somehow giving to Stormont greater powers than was originally intended. I think that this was slightly reflected in what the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) said. This was certainly not the case. It has always been the belief that the Northern Ireland Government had the power to legislate for the British Forces. Indeed, the very first regulations they made, nearly 50 years ago, included regulations dealing with the Armed Forces. The point is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, one must make express provision for the Armed Forces in any regulation one makes. The question at issue before the court today, as I understand it, is whether the treatment of the Armed Forces in these particular regulations fell within the concept of the constitution. The court held that it did not. But on the general operation, there can surely be no doubt that preceding Governments, both sides of the House and the general public, and a majority of the legal profession, have always believed that Stormont had these powers. It has come as a great surprise to many people that, technically, they may not have these powers. Therefore, I say categorically that nothing in this Measure will give to Stormont any greater powers than they were commonly held yesterday already to possess. I welcome the opportunity to emphasise that.
As I am still a little worried and confused about the question of improper action and about what happens to existing claims, would the right hon. Gentleman explain and enlarge on how one would prove, for instance, improper action by soldiers who are covered or would be covered under the Special Powers Act?
The Special Powers Act does not cover anyone against doing something illegal, and claims against soldiers that were being pursued yesterday, if based on the allegation that a soldier had behaved improperly, remain exactly as valid now and tomorrow as they were yesterday. Any claim against a soldier for doing something unlawful remains totally unaffected.
That would apply to the use of excessive force, where that force is not necessary?
Certainly. That would be illegal, because it is the minimum amount of force necessary, and no more than that. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for helping to make that important point clear.
I have covered the main points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. She asked whether we would give an undertaking to bring this Bill back to the House if doubts were subsequently cast upon the effectiveness of the technical drafting. I entirely agree that we must get this right. The Government have the advantage of extremely skilled draftsmen, and parliamentary drafting is a particularly specialised occupation. It is certainly my impression, and that of my right hon. and learned Friend who is expert in these matters, that the Bill as drafted will cover our purpose which is, as I have said, specifically to restore the law to what it was generally held to be yesterday.The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he has covered all the points, but in view of the obvious desire of the House, on all sides, to agree to what the Government are proposing, to give protection to the Army which has been ordered to go to Northern Ireland, would he cover a point he has not mentioned? Some hon. Members are still doubtful about both protection and giving additional powers to the Stormont Government. Would not the way to deal with it be for the Government to give an assurance that, as they are asking Parliament to rush through this legislation one evening, after three months or six months the Government will give the House a chance to review it?
The point, simply, is that what we believe we are doing, through the Bill, is to restore the law to the position it was believed to be in before doubt was cast upon it in the Divisional Court today. If it is subsequently shown that our legislation is defective, we shall have to listen to the voice of the House in putting it right. But I am confident that what we are putting before the House will do this.
May I raise one point about Regulation 38(1)? The Home Secretary will be familiar, of course, with the second submission made on behalf of the appellants. If that submission were capable of being upheld and it was not a point upon which the court adjudicated, what would be the effect of this on Her Majesty's Forces?
The Bill deals with what the court actually held. We have taken the decision of the court on the operative part of the proceedings and we are therefore dealing with what the court has held. What might happen under other circumstances is another matter, but this Bill is designed to deal with the situation which is arising on the judgment of the Divisional Court.
Would my right hon. Friend clarify one point? Am I right in thinking that this Bill relates to the powers of soldiers to stop and search cars and to search premises? My right hon. Friend stated a few minutes ago that at the moment the soldiers are not carrying out their functions as they would if the Divisional Court had not taken its decision. I presume the soldiers are patrolling in order to help maintain peace. If they are shot at tonight from a building by snipers, as they are every night, would they have the right under their common law powers, to enter that building to try to find the sniper?
They have their normal common law powers which all of us possess to apprehend anyone who is committing a crime But until Parliament has decided that they may, they must not exercise their powers under the Special Powers Act upon which doubt has been cast.
I welcome the tone of the debate. It is a considerable thing to put a platter of this character to the House of Commons at such short notice, and it is generally recognised on both sides of the House that, difficult as it is, we owe a duty to the troops in Northern Ireland who are carrying out their tasks so gallantly to see that they have the indemnity to which they are entitled and the powers they need.Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by the Attorney-General, Mr. Maudling, Lord Balniel and the Solicitor-General.
Northern Ireland
Bill to declare the law as to the legislative powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland under Section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, so far as relates to Her Majesty's forces and in particular to the conferment of powers, authorities, privileges or immunities on them, presented accordingly and read the First time and ordered to be printed. [Bill 89.]
Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[ The Attorney-General.]
The House proceeded to a Division—
Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Goodhew and Mr. Fortescue. Teller for the Noes, Miss Devlin.
There being only one Teller for the Noes, Miss Devlin, I declare the Motion carried.Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[ The Attorney-General.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee
[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
Before I call Clause 1, I should tell the Committee that, owing to the extraordinary circumstances in which we are working, I have not been able officially to see any Amendments that hon. Members would like to move. Unofficially, of course, I have seen them, and I am grateful to hon. Members for the opportunity they have given me which has enabled me to have sufficient time to take advice and to see which I should and should not call. In fact, I shall be calling one Amendment to Clause 2. I thought the Committee would like to know that in advance in order to save hon. Members asking questions, so that we can get on with the debate. The copies of the Amendment are available now. It stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).
On a point of order, Sir Robert. Where are the copies of the Amendments available?
They are available now in the Vote Office.
On a point of order, Sir Robert. While hon. Members are obtaining copies of the Amendments, may we be assured that no progress will be made on the Bill?
No. The hon. Gentleman need feel no disquiet about this. The Amendment which I have selected is to Clause 2, and I am now about to call Clause 1 for discussion.
Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. With the greatest respect, you said that the Amendment which you are calling is to Clause 2. We are about to deal with Clause 1. If the proposed Amendments which hon. Members have put forward, but which have been ruled out of order for a variety of reasons, were on the Order Paper, we should be able to read them and to see whether they raise points that we might wish to raise when discussing the Clause. Those of us who have been present in the previous debate have not had an opportunity of obtaining the Order Paper.
I am sure that there is a great deal of substance in what the hon. Gentleman says, but we are working under difficult circumstances. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Amendment to Clause 2, which will shortly be in his hand, will not affect what might be said on Clause 1.
Further to that point of order—
On a point of order, Sir Robert. I have been to the Vote Office, and no Amendments are yet available.
That is rather bad luck. I thought they were available. They will very shortly be available, I am sure.
May I move that the House be suspended for 15 minutes to enable hon. Members to see the Amendments?
I do not think I had better accept that. I may have to suspend perforce later, and I would rather not do it now.
10.15 p.m.
On a point of order, Sir Robert. Would it help the House if you were to read out the only Amendment which you have selected so that we know what we are talking about?
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment, when we get to it, is, in Clause 2, page 1, line 17, at the end add:
That is the Amendment in question."(2) This Act shall expire one year after its passing."
With respect, Mr. Chairman, the point I was raising was that, if manuscript Amendments have been tabled, whether you ruled them out of order or not, they would still be on the Order Paper and we should be able to see them. That they are out of order does not make them any more relevant to Clause 2 if they have been tabled to Clause 1.
The custom of the Committee, where we have these extraordinary circumstances, is that Amendments cannot be seen in the ordinary way because they cannot be printed. Technically, as I have explained, these Amendments existed only a few moments ago when the House gave the Bill a Second Reading and then went into Committee. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman, much as I should like to do so.
As we are dealing with a retrospective Bill. Sir Robert, may we have a retrospective Order Paper which will at least illustrate tomorrow morning all the Amendments which were tabled?
That is not possible because, when we have concluded the business of the Committee, nothing more can be done about it—I hope.
Clause 1
Effect Of Government Of Ireland Act 1920 S4(1) Para (3)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
Had it been in order I should have sought to move an Amendment to the Clause. My Amendment may have been ruled out of order because this is a declaratory Bill seeking to declare what the law was, is, and shall be. Because of that, it has not proved possible to move an Amendment to it. Yet, as the debate on Second Reading showed, there is a considerable amount of fear, suspicion and downright dissatisfaction at the way in which the Bill has been framed. I felt that, under the terms of the Statute and of Clause 1, more power was being given to the Stormont Parliament. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and I thought it right to try to table an Amendment which would have given this House and the other place the right to examine the regulations which we were retrospectively making legal.
It is a matter of considerable regret that the Government have chosen this form of legislation, effectively ruling out constructive Amendments which would have given further power to this House to examine and question Ministers about the rôle and the orders which the British Army was carrying out and acting under so that we could ensure that the Army was being used as a peace-keeping instrument, not as a political tool of the Stormont Government. That would have been the purpose of my Amendment. It is a matter of regret that we have not been able to examine a situation whereby the House of Commons could have gained more power over a subordinate legislature.I oppose this Clause on two grounds. The first sentence reads:
etcetera. That simply means that, whereas the Government of Ireland Act, such as it was, imposed certain limitations on the powers of Stormont to enact and enforce laws in respect of Her Majesty's Forces, this Clause changes that and allows the Stormont Administration to pass laws in respect of Her Majesty's Forces. That raised the question, who is to be ultimately responsible for Her Majesty's Forces and for the laws which Her Majesty's Forces are expected to obey? In the first instance Westminster passes a law or gives orders and in the second Stormont makes laws or gives orders. This Bill gives both assemblies, this Parliament and the Northern Ireland Parliament, legal right to enforce legislation in respect of the troops, and when that legislation or those orders come into effect one may be left with the situation in which the British Army does not go in the direction or fire in the direction or do the work which the one, or the other, intended. The Clause seeks to make retrospective legislation. Perhaps other hon. Members, perhaps the Minister himself, may be able to give us more information on this point, but in my limited understanding of international law, the passing of retrospective legislation is against international law and against the European convention, to which this country is a signatory, when it does not take time off to enact Special Powers Acts. Passing this law is dishonest. It changes the existing law while it declares itself merely to be a declaration of existing law. In passing retrospective law we in this House are in breach of our international obligations. We are in breach of international law if we allow this Bill to pass. International law constitutes this an illegal act, and this an illegal assembly."The limitations imposed by paragraph (3) of section 4 (1) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 on the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws shall not have effect …"
I would ask a question, shortly, in relation to a matter which was aired a number of times during the debate on Second Reading—that we are giving more power to the Stormont Parliament as a result of this Bill. Although I am quite certain that the practical affect of what we are doing is what the Home Secretary suggested, is it not correct that, if this Bill is passed into law, the Northern Irish Government could pass legislation through Stormont taking to themselves the rôle and powers of the Ulster Defence Regiment?
According to Section 4(1)(3) of the Government of Ireland Act, the exclusion relates to matters concerning the defence of the Realm. We are saying in this Bill that the exclusion shall notthat is, of Northern Ireland—"preclude the inclusion in laws made by that Parliament"—
In these circumstances it could certainly be argued that the Ulster Defence Regiment is maintained for the peace, order and good government of Northern Ireland. Therefore, Stormont might very well say that it is they and not us who are responsible for the Ulster Defence Regiment and they could, within the constitution, make laws about that which are not the province of that Parliament. I recognise that this is a legal point rather than a practical point, because we always have the reserve power of abrogating the constitution if the Northern Irish Parliament took a line which this Government did not like, but it is, surely, the legal position that they will be entitled to legislate in respect of the Ulster Defence Regiment."for the peace, order or good government of Northern Ireland of all provision relating to members of Her Majesty's forces …".
I have been out of the Chamber for a moment and I am not sure what ruling has been given on the Amendment, but I will try to make my remarks fit this part of the proceedings.
I do not want to delay the passage of a suitable Measure tonight, but we have a choice between passing a provision like that which the Government are proposing, which puts at their highest the possibie powers we may permit Stormont to have or to keep and, alternatively—a more normal way of dealing with the situation—validating those Acts and regulations made under Acts which Stormont and Stormont Ministers have put into force until now but not giving Stormont power to make any more such provisions. The responsibility for conferring powers upon the British Armed Forces in Northern Ireland would rest where the court in Belfast said it now rests, with this Parliament. I can see no objection to that situation. Many of us on this side of the House in recent months have said repeatedly that responsibility for security in Northern Ireland should rest here in London with this House. The opportunity is now given to us, by accident, by a court in Belfast, to attain part of that objective. I do not object to the provisions already passed by Stormont and Ministers in Northern Ireland being retained upon the Statute Book, but that should be the end of the matter for Stormont. From now on, this House alone should be responsible for conferring powers upon the Armed Forces of this country operating in Northern Ireland. We have not had an explanation from the Government why they have chosen this way rather than the way I am suggesting. If it were in order at a later stage, I should like to move an Amendment to achieve that objective. Failing that, I hope the Government will explain why they are doing it this way. In the absence of that explanation I would certainly oppose the Clause.The debate is on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The Bill consists of this Clause and Clause 2, which describes what the Act may be called.
I think on the Motion we canvassed most of the points which have been raised. I can only repeat what I said on introducing the Bill. I say as emphatically as I can that we are not giving more power to Stormont. The purpose of the Bill is to declare what the law is and what the law was yesterday. I assure the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) that the purpose of the Bill is not to give more power to Stormont, and I advise the House that it does not have that effect. The Ulster Defence Regiment is an integral part of the British Army and is under the command of the British Army. It is part of the British Forces and as such is completely integrated into the British Army. All that the Clause does is to declare what the law is in relation to the powers which can be given to the Forces in operation in Northern Ireland. As was said previously this is what the law was thought to be yesterday and in 1969, and it was how the law was interpreted by an English judge. What the Clause does is to declare that the law is as it has been interpreted and understood in the past. It is for this reason that this form of legislation has been chosen in these particular circumstances. It is designed to be declaratory; to declare the law to be what it has been interpreted to be in the past, and in so doing it does not give to Stormont more power than it had yesterday.10.30 p.m.
If the Bill is designed only to declare the law and not to change it, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain the purpose of the Bill? It must change the law from what it is now. In other words, the law as it stands at the moment is not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to make it by this Measure. He is, therefore, changing the law. Will he please explain why he is changing it in this way, rather than in the way I suggested earlier?
As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, the decision of the court in Northern Ireland says that the law is such that these special powers may not be given to the British Forces. The Bill declares the law—in a sense, of course, contrary to what the Northern Ireland court said—to be, in effect, what it has been believed to have been and what an English judge has described. That is the purpose of the Bill. It declares the law as to the legislative powers of Northern Ireland.
Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee proceeded to a Division—
Tellers for the Ayes. Mr. Fortescue and Mr. Speed. Teller for the Noes, Miss Devlin.
There being only one Teller for the Noes, I declare that the Ayes have it.Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Short Title
I beg to move, in Clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end add:
I make this proposal in what I hope will be seen to be a helpful spirit and I hope that the Government will feel able, for the reasons I shall adduce, to accept it, for by doing so they would allay many of the fears and worries which have been expressed by hon. Members. Although the Attorney-General said that the Bill is declaratory, what it declares is that a judgment of a court in Northern Ireland is inaccurate and that the view which it took of the law is not the view which this House takes of the law. It is a somewhat unusual piece of legislation, and I doubt whether there is a precedent for it. If there is a precedent, I suggest that there are not many pieces of legislation which have been rushed through with such speed as this Bill. I recall the case of Prince Rupert which was debated in this House, when the decision of the Privy Council was reversed and a statutory instrument was introduced for the purpose. It is a rare legislative occurrence and therefore the House requires to look carefully at what it is doing. We are not merely declaring something, but we are reversing the judgment of one court which happens to conflict with the judgment of another court. In a declaration by this Parliament we are saying what the law is, what it was and what it ought to have been considered to be for the last 50 years. That is a sweeping legislative proposal. We understand why this legislation is being rushed. We all accept—or certainly the majority of us in this House accept—that our troops must have freedom from civil and criminal actions, and for that reason it is of the essence that we should be speedy in our deliberations. But we in this House are very jealous when we are giving powers or declaring the nature of powers to be exercised by this House, by the Government or by anybody else. We shall have a debate next week on this matter, but by then this House will have no legislative power over this Bill. I will not reopen the arguments which I put forward on Second Reading, but I must confess that on certain aspects of this Bill I was not entirely convinced either by the Attorney-General or by the Home Secretary on whether we are delegating powers to Stormont which Stormont did not have under the 1920 Act and which they did not believe they had under the 1922 legislation. I will not press that argument further, save to say that it has been put to me by lawyers whose advice I respect and whose advice I know the Attorney-General would respect. We are producing speedy legislation to give immediate protection to our troops. This is right and proper, but what we are also doing, unless this Amendment is accepted, is to give this Bill a permanent legislative force. That is the danger. For a long period of time we had annual debates on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which no longer takes place because many of its provisions are incorporated in permanent legislation; we have an annual debate on immigration; and we also have a periodic debate on sanctions in regard to Rhodesia. Therefore, it is not unknown for this House to say that powers which we have granted must be subject to periodic review. I am not saying that we shall not require such powers in the future, because we shall. The point I am making is that I am not satisfied that those powers have been conferred in the best possible way and that we have the best possible legislation with which to do it. If this House accepts, as it obviously does, the need for speedy protection for Her Majesty's Forces in the United Kingdom, it is surely not unreasonable to say that we shall give that protection by this Bill for a period of one year and that, long before that one year expires, we shall expect Her Majesty's Ministers to have considered the situation, in a way in which they might have liked to consider this matter had this legislation not been rushed through. I shall be surprised if, after due reflection and consultation, they do not produce a Bill which is very much more acceptable to this House and to the vast bulk of lawyers. This is not a delaying tactic. It is a recognition of the necessity for this legislation, but it is a plea to the Government that we do not turn rushed legislation into permanent legislation and that we shall have an opportunity to review it at a later stage. In that spirit I move the Amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.(2) This Act shall expire one year after its passing.
While my hon. and right hon. Friends and I fully sympathise with and understand the motivation of this Amendment, it presents in my view one fundamental difficulty. That is that if the Amendment is agreed to the indemnity which the Bill proposes for the members of our Armed Forces and the legal protection which the Bill proposes to give to them would terminate in a year's time. It also would have effect on previous actions that could be made the subject of proceedings. In those circumstances, we see that as a great difficulty.
The view that I certainly form is that tonight the Home Secretary has given very important and specific assurances—first, that the Bill will not be used to impose criminality retrospectively; secondly, that no civil claims will be jeopardised by the Bill; and, thirdly, that no additional powers are conferred by the Bill on Stormont. If the Home Secretary will now give an undertaking that if it is found that any of those assurances cannot be or are not fulfilled he will bring the proposals back to the House for reconsideration, we shall not find it necessary to support this Amendment.Mr. Chairman, I very much regret what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has just said, but—
Order. It is the practice to address me when in the Chair as Sir Robert.
The first time I spoke in this House I nearly said "Comrade Speaker".
My hon. Friend has come a long way since then.
When my right hon. and learned Friend was making his first point, I thought of the arguments which had gone before which some hon. Members said were lawyers' arguments. The arguments were met in full by the Leader of the Liberal Party. He said that by the end of the year we shall have worked out what all this has meant. My right hon. and learned Friend paid particular attention to the three undertakings which the Home Secretary gave—the first about retrospective criminality, the second about no effect on civil proceedings and the third that the Bill confers no extra powers on Stormont. That might not be so in the letter of the law, but it certainly does in the spirit of the law. We are in fact saying, "For all your failures, your ineptitudes, your stupidities"—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Treacheries."]—" yes, indeed, treacheries, we are going to put our troops under your control."
10.45 p.m. My right hon. and learned Friend must recall that it is the policy of our party that control for security should be transferred from Stormont to this Parliament. By imposing a time limit making it necessary for this House to look again at this matter, without it having to be pushed through in this short time without all the documents being available and without an opportunity to refer to all the cases, we as a party are presented with a positive opportunity to support our party policy in the Division Lobby. While we are concerned to protect the rôle of British troops in Northern Ireland, we have no intention of giving Stormont a blank cheque for whatever emergency regulations it might occur to it to introduce in the future. We have had no undertakings that there will be no further emergency regulations of a more sweeping nature introduced under these powers, and we have had no undertaking that existing regulations will not be amended in such a way as to make them even more regressive.Does my hon. Friend also agree that, if the Government were to accept this Amendment, which is only a temporary one, it would be possible in the next few months to put before the House legislation which it could consider in the detailed way that the Government would wish to see if it were not for the stresses and strains of this emergency? That being so, should not the Amendment be acceptable to the Government?
My hon. Friend has put much more succinctly than I could what was to be my final point. A number of hon. Members have pointed out what a pity it is that Parliament is being rushed in this way. If the Government were prepared to accept this moderate, considerate Amendment, we should be able to deal with this legislation in a more detailed manner at a later date.
If the Government will accept the Amendment, I shall be quite happy. If they refuse to accept it, I shall urge my hon. Friends to go into the Division lobby with Liberal hon. Members.I did not seek to speak on Second Reading because I accepted fully what was said earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he assured the Government of our co-operation in facilitating the passage of this legislation. However, I think that the Government should consider whether it is not their constitutional duty to meet the desire which has been expressed by a number of hon. Members. The Home Secretary has obtained from the House the very unusual agreement to pass legislation in a few hours. The right hon. Gentleman needs no teaching from anyone about the extraordinary nature of this procedure. He knows that it is normally only at the outbreak of war that a Government asks this House for such a procedure to be adopted, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had fully in mind the considerations which have impelled the Government to ask for this procedure.
There is no reason to show any impatience when the House is asked to accept this kind of procedure. There is every reason for listening to the contributions of my hon. Friends. The point at issue is substantial. The Home Secretary has made declarations—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) calls them assurances—dealing with three points. I prefer to call them declarations because the evidence of the debate is that these points will remain in doubt. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and some of my hon. Friends remain unconvinced. If there were more time, if only Second Reading took place tonight, as is usual, with Committee Stage in eight or ten days' time, we would have the opportunity to consult experts and the opinions that have been expressed could be tested and resolved. It is because the House has agreed to take all stages tonight that there is no such opportunity and the problems remain unresolved. It is therefore reasonable to ask the Government to agree to bring this Measure back to the House. I do not disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend when he says that a useful alternative method to this Amendment would be a form of assurance from the Treasury Bench that after a certain period, say six months, the Government would bring this Measure back to the House and give us another opportunity to review it. If it is merely a debate, I agree with the right hon. Member for Devon, North, that that is not enough. I appreciated the immediate assurance by the Leader of the House that there would be an early debate. If that had not been given, this would have been a much longer debate, in which my hon. Friends would have wished to introduce wider considerations. We need a definite agreement by the Government that after a time—although no Amendment may be made—they will respond to the request of my right hon. and learned Friend. Then it would not be necessary to vote for the Amendment.I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) would pursue his argument a little further. I can see that the Amendment, if carried, would limit the indemnity which we are giving to the Forces in Northern Ireland to a period of 12 months. I cannot understand why that is fundamental. It is implicit in the Amendment that there should be some further enabling legislation giving further, possibly permanent, indemnity. All we ask is for time to reconsider the position with greater calmness, when we have had an opportunity of looking at the many flaws which have been discovered—and examining those which have yet to be uncovered. The Government could reasonably accept the Amendment and return, if they were still of the same mind, with exactly the same legislation in 12 months' time. They might find on reflection that it would be better to have the kind of permanent legislation for which I was arguing earlier. I hope my right hon. Friends will consider whether their attitude is what is required at this moment and whether they could not support this Amendment.
My hon. and learned Friend asks me to take my argument a little further, but I must confess that I see nothing explicit or implicit in the Amendment to suggest that alternative legislation is to be brought forward.
Come off it.
I am not coming off or on, but just endeavouring to answer this question. I have said clearly that we on this side of the Committee require reconsideration of the whole position of this House in regard to Stormont and the exercise of security powers and authority over security forces in Northern Ireland. I have said that these matters of fundamental importance should be made subject to urgent consideration by Parliament and I should have thought that that would be an occasion for thrashing out the kind of permanent future legislation we want, rather than this Amendment which I submit has a fundamental defect. I submit that it has the fundamental defect of exposing our Armed Forces in 12 months time to the risk of civil action.
What the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has just said is entirely reasonable. Although the Leader of the Liberal Party made a good speech in moving this Amendment, it is a wrecking Amendment and would place a time bomb under British troops in Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that it will be vigorously resisted by my Front Bench. There is nothing to preclude the House from looking at the problem of Northern Ireland at any time, or introducing legislation at any time, but now is not the time to put a wrecking Amendment into this Bill.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) has brought a very emotive note into this debate. This is not a wrecking Amendment and his remarks are unworthy of him.
To suggest that it is placing a time bomb under British troops is arrant nonsense. This Amendment would enable the House to debate the matter coolly within the period of a year. This is a subject which the House has not had an opportunity to debate tonight. We have rushed through this legislation. We have a number of points of view which are in diametric opposition to each other. I do not know who is legally right, whether it is the Leader of the Liberal Party or the Attorney-General, because we have not had adequate opportunity to consider these matters. I have a high regard for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) and, normally, I am absolutely delighted to take his leadership, but not tonight, because I cannot see the logic of his argument. How does he think it will imperil the position of our troops if we consider the matter within 12 months? In these circumstances, I hope that it the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment, the Leader of the Liberal Party will divide the House on the matter, and I shall be pleased to support him.11.0 p.m.
It has been suggested that if the Amendment is passed there will be plenty of opportunity to reconsider the matter over the next year.
I suggest that the House, understandably perhaps, considering the rush, is in danger of making an awful ass of itself—and the Government even more than the House. We all know in the House that these powers will be conferred, one way or another, and will be extended beyond a year. If the present Government are in power, they will do it, and if we on this side are in power, we shall do it. Everyone in the House knows that there are only two or three hon. Members who will vote against the extension of the powers. I am in favour of the Army having these powers in present circumstances. It is absolutely right and necessary that they should, so let us not talk about the effect of the Amendment being that the Army is under sentence of death after one year. One might as well say that the Army cannot look forward to having its pay at the end of one year. On the other hand, if the Amendment is passed, we know that there will be a debate probably at the end of a year, but that legislation will not be changed because there will be no sufficient reason to change it; and we on this side, perhaps wanting to change it, will be in the same position of complaining about the 1922 arrangements generally. That is not desirable. There are many faults or potential faults in this legislation. I am not at all satisfied on the point about the Schedule, and there are many other points on which the legislation is at least doubtful. If Parliament is to pass legislation of this kind in four hours flat and then not accept a very moderate and modest Amendment like this—which says that we shall, not possibly but definitely, have another look at this within a year—then Parliamentary democracy has reached an even lower pitch in this country than we all know it has. For once in its life, Parliament is doing something real, having a real debate. My own Front Bench are making an awful mistake in denying the House the right to review the Measure in one year, and then to extend it, perhaps in a different form, when the House has had a better opportunity to consider the matter.I support my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. George Cunningham), and want to rebuff some of the comments of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). I was amazed when he said that we are putting some kind of political time bomb under the Army's activities. Is not this precisely how the Commonwealth immigrants legislation, the Army Act and the Rhodesian sanctions legislation were introduced? They, too, were fundamental matters of principle which the House should not treat lightly.
I cannot help feeling that all this will look very different come Friday or Saturday. This honourable House, this Mother of Parliaments, is being judge and jury in four hours flat. Around the world it will now be said that, if the British House of Commons does not like the way the judiciary interprets the legislation it passes, it can always change the Act. Is this the example that we want to set around the world? In passing the Bill, particularly in this rushed way, we are proving what the I.R.A. has always said—that the British Army is in the hands of Stormont. We are endorsing that, without giving the House the chance to reconsider the matter in 12 months. To that end, surely we can accept this relatively harmless Amendment.The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) has distorted the spirit in which the Leader of the Liberal Party moved the Amendment. I fully understand the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman moved it. I ask the Committee to examine the Amendment in the context of certain matters; first, in the context of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President that there will be a debate upon the wider matters and wider issues, involving all the great issues of policy and differences of view held about this matter. It is in that debate undoubtedly that all the great matters, part of which have come into this debate, will be introduced.
Second, this is a short Bill which declares the law. In that sense it is a Bill which, if it becomes an Act, will say, "This is what the law is and this is what we declare it to be." In such a Bill it is very difficult to say, "We declare it to be and it shall be—but only for a year." What the Bill does, although hon. Members have criticised it, in the form of its declaratory nature, is to declare the law to be, as I have said several times today, what it was thought to be prior to today and what it has been held previously by an English judge to be. Third, in the context of what I said earlier, I repeat that on behalf of the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland I give the undertaking that any prosecution now pending which would follow if the judgment of today stood will be abandoned or stopped, and that no new prosecution of that kind will be initiated in relation to the past. That is a categorical undertaking that I have given on behalf of the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland. It deals with the point about criminality, with which my right hon. Friend dealt. On the point about no extra powers for Stormont, both my right hon. Friend and I have repeated time and again that the Bill is to put the position back to what it was believed to have been this morning, namely, giving the power to Stormont to use their special powers and to apply them to the Army so that the Army can exercise the duties it is called upon to perform. With regard to civil claims, we must make it perfectly clear—I think that my right hon. Friend made it clear—I think that my right hon Friend made it clear —that the Bill will not act retrospectively affecting civil claims based on any matter other than the technical defect in the powers of the troops, as affected by the Bill. In other words, in respect of this defect, as revealed by this judgment and put right, as it were, by the Bill—only in that sense are claims affected. Civil claims will be unaffected if they are claims about an excess of power which has been used, if it ever has been used. Those claims would remain exactly as they were before the introduction of the Bill. Hon. Members must look at what the right hon. Gentleman intends. He is right to bring it to the attention of the House. But what he seeks to do is to make a very substantial Amendment to the Special Powers Act. He wants to make the addition of those special powers temporary. But the Bill is merely the vehicle of putting back the law into the position in which it was always thought to be.rose—
The hon. Gentleman has not been present during most of our debate, and many other hon. Members have been in the Chamber the whole time.
If one does that with a declaratory Act of Parliament, and then one looks at the Statute Book thereafter, one sees that the Bill would set out to say that the law shall have had effect and has always had that effect, as is provided, so as not to preclude the provisions of these particular powers—and then at the end one would say that it will last for only one year. To that extent it does not make sense of this form of provision in the law. In these circumstances while, as I have said, I well appreciate what the right hon. Member for Devon, North, said in moving the Amendment, having given the assurances about the criminal law and about the extra powers, which it is denied will be given to Stormont, and in respect of civil claims. I advise the Committee to resist the Amendment.What the Leader of the Liberal Party is seeking in the Amendment is quite simple. We have been given certain assurances by the Government, but we have not had the assurance that the Bill, which we are asked to pass in a very short time with little or no consideration, can be guaranteed to have further consideration by the House within a year.
The Amendment was drafted originally with the wordsThat was held to be out of order and that part of it had to be dropped if the Amendment were to be considered at all. The House has clearly expressed its view that the cloak of legality should be extended over what our soldiers have been doing because they have been doing it in our name. But we do not know the constitutional implication of the Amendment to the Special Powers Act. I have expressed my view in a speech, but how often have we known right hon. and learned Gentlemen to assure the House about the effect of legislation only to find that the courts have ruled later that they were wrong and that the effect has been totally different. I am astounded at the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones). He suggested that the fatal objection to this Amendment was that the troops would be uncertain at the end of the year. It is conceivable that the House of Commons, feeling as it does, would not approve legislation to put that matter right within a year? The right hon. and learned Member has stood at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions and introduced important matters such as sanctions and Acts concerning the Services which have to be renewed from year to year. He surely knows that here we are seeking the same kind of assurances in quite exceptional circumstances. The House had no idea at 2.30 p.m. today that it was to be asked to pass the Bill. It is a very important Bill, otherwise the Government would not have brought it forward. Hon. Members in all parts of the House consider that the protection of our troops is very important. But equally, the protection of the rights of the House, the protection of our constitutional position, is very important. We are being asked to pass a piece of amending legislation which has a tremendous retrospective effect and we are asking for the right to seek the guarantee that we should be allowed to consider it afresh within a year. On this issue, at least, I hope that the Chief Whip of the Labour Party will allow a free vote for his party."unless renewed in pursuance of affirmative resolution of the House of Commons"
We are all in a difficulty, and I want to make a suggestion, if I am in order to do so. Given the difficulty of making Amendments, I hope that I shall be permitted some elasticity.
As it stands, the Clause achieves two quite different objectives. First, it corrects the position as it has been in the past and, second, it creates a situation for the future. For the past, no one would surely wish in a year's time to have the validation of the previous position terminated. But for the future people may well want a different arrangement than that provided in the Bill.
Division No. 64.]
| AYES
| [11.17 p.m.
|
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Kaufman, Gerald | Sandelson, Neville |
| Cunningham G. (Islington, S.W.) | Kerr, Russell | Stallard, A. W. |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) | Kinnock, Neil | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) | Lamond, James | Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy |
| Devlin, Miss Bernadette | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | McNamara, J. Kevin | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Hooson, Emlyn | Milne, Edward | Mr. David Steel and |
| Huckfield, Leslie | Orme, Stanley | Mr. John Pardoe. |
NOES
| ||
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) | Kitson, Timothy |
| Astor, John | Fookes, Miss Janet | Knox, David |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Fortescue, Tim | Lane, David |
| Balniel, Lord | Foster, Sir John | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry |
| Batsford, Brian | Fowler, Norman | Le Marchant, Spencer |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) |
| Benyon, W. | Goodhart, Philip | Longden, Gilbert |
| Biffen, John | Gray, Hamish | Loveridge, John |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Green, Alan | Luce, R. N. |
| Boscawen, Robert | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | MacArthur, Ian |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Grylls, Michael | McLaren, Martin |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Gummer, Selwyn | McMaster, Stanley |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher | Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) | McNair-Wilson, Michael |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Maddan, Martin |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M) | Hannam, John (Exeter) | Maginnis, John E. |
| Buck, Antony | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Mather, Carol |
| Carlisle, Mark | Haselhurst, Alan | Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald |
| Chapman, Sydney | Havers, Michael | Mawby, Ray |
| Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher | Hawkins, Paul | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward | Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) |
| Churchill, W. S. | Hicks, Robert | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) | Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W) |
| Clegg, Walter | Holland, Philip | Moate, Roger |
| Cooke, Robert | Hornby, Richard | Molyneaux, James |
| Coombs, Derek | Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia | Monro, Hector |
| Cormack, Patrick | Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) | More, Jasper |
| Costain, A. P. | James, David | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) |
| Crouch, David | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Morrison, Charles |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj. -Gen. James | Jessel, Toby | Mudd, David |
| Dean, Paul | Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) | Murton, Oscar |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Jopling, Michael | Nabarro, Sir Gerald |
| Drayson, G. B. | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine | Normanton, Tom |
| du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Kershaw, Anthony | Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Osborn, John |
| Emery, Peter | King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) |
| Eyre, Reginald | Kinsey, J. R. | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Fenner, Mrs. Peggy | Kirk, Peter | Parkinson, Cecil |
I appeal to the Attorney-General to consider the possibility of himself bringing forward an Amendment which would be similar, basically, to that of the leader of the Liberal Party. It might say:
"Save in respect of Acts and regulations made after February 1973 the Bill will lapse."
That would get round the difficulty of a declaratory provision apparently ceasing to be on the Statute Book, unless continued, but would give the House the right automatically to reconsider the new provision giving to Stormont a power which it was thought to have had, but which it has turned out not to have had. That would be an extremely attractive compromise.
Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 158.
| Percival, Ian | Sharples, Richard | Waddington, David |
| Pink, R. Bonner | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch | Shelton, William (Clapham) | Wall, Patrick |
| Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) | Walters, Dennis |
| Proudfoot, Wilfred | Soref, Harold | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis | Spence, John | Weatherhill, Bernard |
| Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James | Stanbrook, Ivor | White, Roger (Gravesend) |
| Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter | Sutcliffe, John | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Redmond, Robert | Tebbit, Norman | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) | Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret | Wilkinson, John |
| Rees, Peter (Dover) | Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.) | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) | Worsley, Marcus |
| Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) | Tilney, John | |
| Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Trew, Peter | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Russell, Sir Ronald | Vaughan, Dr. Gerard | Mr. Keith Speed and |
| Scott, Nicholas | Vickers, Dame Joan | Mr. Victor Goodhew |
Amendment accordingly negatived.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Scottish Hospital Trust
11.25 p.m.
I beg to move,
With permission, I will deal at the same time with my following Motion,That the Scottish Hospital Trust Regulations 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.
Since the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1971, received the Royal Assent just over a year ago a good deal of preparatory work has been done. In particular, the Scottish Hospital Trust was constituted on 1st September, and has since appointed its secretary and investment adviser. What we are doing now is, firstly, to set up the arrangements under which the relevant endowments—that is, those given to Scottish Health Service hospitals up to 5th November, 1946—will be transferred to the trust on the appointed day. My right hon. Friend proposes to make an Order appointing 1st April, 1972, for this purpose. From that day, the trust will hold and manage these endowments, and distribute the income to hospital authorities under schemes to be made by the Secretary of State from time to time. These, the House will recall, are the principal provisions of the Act, which, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) will remember, was a largely agreed Measure. I hope the House will agree that it is sensible and convenient to debate these two instruments together. Although they are quite distinct in their purpose they really form one package. Essentially, the regulations cover the transfer arrangements and the questions of future as well as outstanding borrowings. The Scheme lays down how the Trust is to distribute the income and how it is to be used. We have consulted hospital authorities about these proposals. On the whole, their reaction has been favourable. The Scottish Hospital Trust, which will have to deal with the practical effect of the instruments, is quite happy about them. I turn now to the detailed provisions, and first to the regulations. In regulation 4, two main groups of endowments are excepted from transference. Two hospital boards are excluded altogether because of special circumstances applying to them. Also excluded are a number of heritable properties which we have decided, having considered them under Section 2(4) of the Act, should be left with the boards concerned. These are set out in the Schedule. Regulation 5 prescribes special conditions attaching to two particular endowment funds. Each of these boards has, as part of its relevant endowments, a fund which it can spend on certain purposes without the normal obligation to replace the capital. We are simply continuing these arrangements. Regulation 6 lays down the arrangements for valuing the endowments transferred. This is important in connection with income distribution, as I shall be explaining in a moment. There is provision for stating each board's share in the Trust's capital initially and for revising this in certain circumstances. Regulation 7 deals with borrowings. It has always been open to boards to use their endowment capital for hospital or specialist services or for medical research, subject to certain approvals where it was proposed to spend more than £1,000, and provided they replaced the capital within 30 years. Section 6 of the Act continues this facility, and this Regulation fills in the details. I now turn to the Scheme. It provides how the net income of the trust is to be distributed to hospital authorities. In the first place each hospital board of management—except the two excluded—and also the Committee of the State Hospital, will receive £3 per bed per annum and regional hospital boards will receive a fixed sum. The balance of the Trust's income will then be shared among all hospital boards in proportion to the value of the endowments which they have transferred to the Trust. The Browning Working Party, which was set up by the previous Government. and for whose report I am most grateful, estimated that the total income per bed represented by these endowments would, for the poorest endowed hoard, rise from about £1·70 to about £3·75 per bed. We are continuing the previous provisions with regard to the use of endowment income. Paragraph 4 expresses these in detail. Quite simply, the money must be used for hospital or specialist purposes or for medical research. For capital or research purposes certain clearances are required if the expenditure will exceed £2,000—this figure is being raised from the present £1,000. Finally, certain special purposes of a memorial nature are provided for. These are existing conditions of specific endowments which the boards have asked us to retain. Some of these purposes would not be legitimate if they were not included here, because they do not constitute hospital or specialist services or medical research. I should perhaps add something about the effect of health service reorganisation on these arrangements. The 1971 Act will remain in force, but amendments to the Act and revision of the Statutory Instruments will be necessary. Our intention, however, is that their effect will not be altered, and that health boards will be required to use the income for hospital purposes, and indeed, so far as practicable, to devote it to the same hospitals in their area as would have benefited previously. I end with a brief apology. The House may have noticed that in two places—one in the regulations and one in the Scheme—the regulations are referred to as being of 1971. This is an obvious slip and will be corrected when the instruments are made. I hope the House will approve the two instruments.That the Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.
11.33 p.m.
It is evident from the mass exodus when the Minister rose that this subject is not so dramatic as the subject we have been discussing for the last few hours, but it is nevertheless fitting that we should pay tribute to the people who many years ago gave money to hospitals to make the lives of patients easier and to help research. The reputation of Scottish hospitals has benefited greatly from the generosity of the Scottish people, which has enabled hospitals to undertake specialist research and to raise their standards.
The Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1971, was basically an agreed Measure, and the Browning Working Party was set up by the previous Government. I am glad that provision has been made to preserve the memorial nature of some of the endowments, as this will give a sense of continuity. This applies particularly to prizes for nurses and internees at certain hospitals. I am also glad to know that, in general, hospital boards are in agreement with the purpose of the Instruments. Paragraph 5 of the Trust Regulations begins:Is this a convenient way of proceeding, a request having been made to the Secretary of State? How much is involved in the value of the capital of the funds of Astley Ainslie and Associated Hospitals and the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary? Why, in this case, are the funds allowed to meet only capital expenditure, whereas the funds of the trusts normally meet revenue expenditure and further powers are required to meet capital expenditure in those other cases? I am glad that the Minister has reached the point of being able to bring these regulations forward. We hope that in future the trust funds will operate as in the past and that the endowment system applying to Scottish hospitals will prove as productive for the hospitals system."At the request of the Board of Management for the Astley Ainslie, Edenhall and Associated Hospitals, the Secretary of State may direct …".
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael) for his acceptance of the regulations and the Scheme. I wish also to express my gratitude to the people of Scotland for the funds they have provided. They have been of enormous help to our hospitals.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the memorial provision. This will enable prizes to be given, particularly at teaching hospitals. It is important to look after the grave stones and property bequeathed to hospitals, often many years ago. The capital funds of the Astley Ainslie and Associated Hospitals total about £200,000, and for the Royal Infirmary the sum—this is only in respect of the Sir Robert McVitie Grant Dermatological Fund—is £10,000. Both of these funds were set up so that the capital could be used when required, and this is why special provision for them is being made in these instruments.Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Scottish Hospital Trust Regulations 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved—[Mr. Monro.]
Order. I propose to suspend the Sitting of the House and, for the convenience of the House, the Division bells will ring when the Sitting resumes.
Sitting suspended at twenty-two minutes to twelve o'clock and resumed at two minutes past two o'clock.
I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords by one of their Clerks, as follows:
The Lords have agreed to the Northern Ireland Bill, without Amendment.
Royal Assent
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Adjournment
Motion made, and Question proposea, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]
School Children(Maintenance Allowances)
2.3 a.m.
I welcome this opportunity to raise the very serious problem of maintenance allowances for children at school.
As from September of this year, all children in Britain will have to stay at school until they are 16 years of age. I am all in favour of that, and I am glad that the Government are going ahead with that very long overdue reform. But, in order that the reform may be fully effective, I believe that it is necessary to examine the provision that we make to enable all our children, wherever they may live and whatever the circumstances of their parents or the families to which they belong, to take full advantage of the educational facilities which are offered. Under Section 81 of the Education Act, 1944, local education authorities are empowered under regulations by the Secretary of State to provide help by way of free meals, for instance, or the provision of transport, the payment of travelling expenses, and various grants for clothing, including P.E. clothing, to enable children to benefit in full from what our schools have to offer. There is also provision for the award of maintenance allowances to pupils over the compulsory school age. It is the latter provision with which I want to deal. These allowances are payable only to those who stay at school after the statutory leaving age and are completely within the discretion of the local education authorities. Even the amount payable is decided locally. In 1956 the Minister of Education, as he then was, set up a working party to consider the effects of such allowances and whether changes ought to be made in the scheme then operative. That working party confirmed the need for such a scheme and drew up a recommended scale of allowances to be payable according to the income of parents. These were for the guidance of local authorities and nothing more. No other scales have been laid down since that time 15 years ago and on that score alone it seems worth another look. My recent investigations, begun as a result of representations by my constituents convince me that a complete reappraisal is urgently necessary, and I hope for a favourable response from the Minister. The hon. Gentleman will recall that on 20th January, in answer to a Written Question he said that no regular information was collected about the numbers receiving these allowances and I can understand that because they are discretionary. There was a special ad hoc return called for for the spring term of 1970 which showed that the parents of 20,000 children were receiving the allowance. That means that the scheme is not working. That shows a scandalous state of affairs because there must be thousands of families who do not know their rights or who are denied the necessary allow ance because the adjustments to the income scale have not kept pace with the rising cost of living. I could quote examples of families where the breadwinner is either sick, disabled or unemployed and where the family is not entitled, on the income scale laid down, to a maintenance allowance from the local education authority. When the Minister invited various local authority representatives and teacher organisations to take part in the 1956 working party it was said that the total expenditure on maintenance allowances ought not to increase and could possibly be diminished, while still giving adequate help where needed. That sort of advice was nonsense then and is nonsense now, certainly when there are over a million unemployed and when there are families whose income is inadequate if the childen are to have the necessities to enable them to take full advantage of what the schools are to offer. The Minister also said that he was inviting the working party to make recommendations because there was a need to introduce a considerably greater degree of uniformity among authorities. That is true. It is undeniable that allowances at present are inadequate, unevenly distributed and are not meeting the needs of the children for whom they were introduced. There is agreement in this House that for all our children, wherever they may live, in whatever circumstances, the Government and certainly hon. Members on this side are anxious to make the sort of provision which will enable all our children to receive full benefit from education. The Minister knows, as I do, that in report after report, evidence has been produced that early leaving is often due to financial hardship. I am sure that the Under-Secretary is as anxious as I am to remove at least that factor which compels some children to leave school before reaching anything like their full potential. I shall give an example from the Northern Region. There, I know because I used to be a member, there is a North-East Council of Education Committees. All the education committees in the area meet from time to time to discuss various educational matters and they review the income scale for maintenance allowances and agree how the scale shall be administered in the areas they cover. In the scheme, which I have examined carefully, I find that annual joint gross income of both parents is assessed from all sources including social security payments, widows pension and so on. Deductions allowable include £120 for each dependent child under 18, and £180 for any dependent over 18. Rent, rates or mortgage are also allowed up to a maximum of £4·25 a week or £221 a year. The maximum allowance payable to the 15-year-old is £123 per annum, and to qualify for the maximum allowance net income must not exceed £375 per year or £7·75 a week. The Under-Secretary will agree that this is ludicrous in present circumstances. I know that the northern authorities are reviewing the scale now because of representations made, but I think this justifies a new approach. A man, wife, and two children, one 12 and the other 15, with a gross income of £18 per week, paying rent of £2·50 a week would qualify for £18 a year. I suggest that with a 15-year-old in full-time education, many families need much greater help than that. It bears no relation to real need, and after September the 15-yearold will receive nothing. The governing bodies of schools and divisional executives in Durham have protested to the county education authority, which in turn has made representations to the Minister about the withdrawal of grants from the 15-year-olds. Because of the school leaving age being raised, according to law, only those over school leaving age—16 plus—will be entitled even to be considered for allowances, and I am surprised to see from a copy of a letter from the Minister to the Durham authority dated 21st December last year, that no amendment of the law is contemplated. I therefore make the following suggestions: the law should be amended to enable children below statutory leaving age to qualify for allowance. The Minister knows, because we have discussed it in the Chamber and in other places before, that in the Northern Region, many people will be staying for an extra year after next September who would otherwise have left school. I welcome this. In the Northern Region, unfortunately, for various reasons, not just lack of finance, we have some leeway to make up in the number of children staying on. I can see—this is borne out by representations from divisional executives and governing bodies—real hardship unless allowances are made available for 15year-olds who will have to stay on until they are 16. We should remember that income per capita in the Northern Region is only about 79 per cent. of the national average, according to the 1968–69 count. My second proposal is that the scheme should be made mandatory on all authorities, with an income scale laid down, as we had for free school meals, so that equality of treatment is achieved for all children, irrespective of the meanness or otherwise of various local education authorities. If there is one thing that parents are concerned about, it is that living in one place attracts a higher grant than in another. Third, in establishing the scheme, we have to have regard to the earning capacity of 16-year-olds. I know that this was disregarded by the working party and I would not say that it should be the yardstick or anything like it, but, in persuading parents of the worth of an extra year, some regard has to be paid to the earning capacity of school children who might have been at work. The Minister will agree that this scheme would be a very sound investment in the nation's future, bringing benefit not only to society in general but to individual pupils. Finally, the Department should launch a publicity campaign, whatever happens, to make parents aware of the scheme which is in operation now, inadequate though it may be. A total of only 20,000 throughout England and Wales means that the scheme is not working. The Department has some responsibility in this matter. All parents need to be aware of their entitlement, and these young men and women—for that is what they are—of 15 and 16 should feel that, by continuing their education as all of us want them to do, they are not a "drag" on their parents, but that, of right, they are compensated by some allowance, and have some independence. This is a vital matter. With the raising of the school leaving age, it is becoming urgent. I could bring very hard cases to the Minister's notice if I had the time. The Minister should accept this kind of reappraisal, so that, all over the country, in remote rural areas, cities and towns, wherever children are attending school and wherever we want them to profit from their education, they will be able to receive as of right an allowance which will not depend upon the local education authority and its generosity or its anxiety to keep down rates but will be a national scheme, administered locally of course, but mandatory on every authority in the country.2.19 a.m.
As always, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) has put forward his case not only with great personal knowledge but with an obvious sincerity. I shall do my best to answer the particular points he has raised. Probably neither of us had supposed that we should either be speaking so far into the morning, as we are, or that we should be doing so after what is, after all, one of the historic moments in Parliament's life.
I well remember the hon. Gentleman raising this point before. When I saw this Adjournment debate on the list, I recalled that he raised this point when he and I were members of Standing Committee A, considering the Education (Milk) Bill on 6th July. In a way, that is relevant to one or two points I shall make shortly, but I shall return to that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is understandable and good that there should be a searchlight on the possibilities and availabilities of these particular grants at a time when we are contemplating, very shortly, the raising of the school leaving age. I am delighted to join with him across the Floor of the House in welcoming that event. It is a very important moment in our educational history. I recognise that by reference to a date, which is 1st September, 1972, and by reference to whether a young person is 15 before or after that date, so will it be determined whether, as the law stands at present, that person is entitled to one of the awards about which the hon. Gentleman is speaking. The hon. Gentleman puts it perfectly fairly that, as the law stands at present, if they are 15 before that date, they will be entitled, and entitled throughout the coming school year, whereas he is perfectly right that if their 15th birthday should fall after that date they will not be entitled. It is always tough to be on the wrong side of any particular given date. But both sides of the House would concede that if we are to raise the school leaving age, there has to be a date in the calendar from which that process starts. I must, therefore, establish clearly—the hon. Gentleman hinted at this—that if there were to be any change in this matter in respect of the grants being available to those below the compulsory school leaving age, this would require legislation. The matter derives from the Education Act. I shall not go into the references now. My right hon. Friend and her successors as Secretary of State could not do this by order made under the Act. It would require legislation. In all fairness and directness to the hon. Gentleman, I ought to say that I see no prospect of legislation being introduced to that end; apart from all other considerations—I have other considerations—certainly not in time to affect the raising of the school leaving age. It would be only right and proper to make that point clearly. Nor am I convinced by the hon. Gentleman's case on this particular point. This is a very personal subject on which, in general principle, it would be right for the House to continue to entrust discretion to local authorities. When talking about allowances, the hon. Gentleman said that they were unevenly distributed. He referred to a table of figures, which I think I gave not long ago in Answer to a Question on this matter and which was set out in HANSARD. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would have expected just exactly that. In the county, part of which he represents in the House, I notice that the number of pupils in receipt of educational maintenance allowances was 1,127 on the date chosen. In the county of which I represent a part there were 62. That is wildly different but the conditions in Berkshire are significantly different from the conditions in part of the county of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West. I do not find it a matter for criticism that in a county such as I represent, with a high rate of employment and, broadly speaking, very good economic conditions, fewer children are being assisted. I am not seeking, to say that every child in either county who ought to receive it is necessarily doing so. I would have expected uneven distribution if local authorities are to exercise their discretion according to local circumstances. Successive Governments have regarded these allowances as an additional incentive, sometimes a determining incentive, to parents—who, by law, can remove their children from school—to allow their children to remain in school. They are glad to do so and without the allowances it would often be impossible. But they have never been seen as an additional social benefit during the compulsory years. I noticed with interest that the hon. Member made his plea for an amendment to the law almost exclusively on the basis of the age of 15. He would, I think, agree with me that if the law was to be altered fundamentally it would have to be altered so that local education authorities had the discretion over the whole range of the compulsory school age. He nods his assent so we think alike on this. There would clearly be no point in doing it only for the age of 15 although I could see the 15-yearolds in the year the school leaving age was raised thinking if they had been born a year earlier they would have had the allowance. The argument the hon. Member is putting to me is that over the whole range of our compulsory school age we should have this additional allowance. It would then become something quite different from what it has been since it was first initiated. Surely the weapons available to the State under successive Governments in respect of children who are compulsorily at school have advanced very considerably. It could be argued they have not advanced enough. The hon. Member referred to allowances in respect of school uniforms, assistance with travel and this sort of thing. But then, over the years, there have been the social security benefits under successive Governments culminating in, for example, such totally new projects as the Family Income Supplement. These are a new injection of State assistance and help for families who are in social need. Against that background of change and extension of social provision by the State we have to ask whether the right way forward is to provide the maintenance allowance for those who are of compulsory school age. I prefer to look at it in this way: as from this year a significant number of children who would otherwise have been under great social pressure to leave school at 15 will be buttressed by the law. Both the hon. Gentleman and I are delighted that that will be so. If they thereafter stay on over 16, and if they might then want to leave for economic reasons, we still have the maintenance allowance to assist them. But below that age there is the buttress of the law, and since these allowances came into operation we have added a number of social security weapons to our armoury. I am asked, however, whether we should not make the allowances mandatory, even if I am limiting myself to those aged 16-plus. I am not trying to make a debating point, but it was significant that the last time the hon. Gentleman and I discussed the subject it was on a Bill when he was critical of me for, as he said, removing from local authorities a certain discretion which he thought they should have. There is a considerable difference in principle. But what the hon. Gentleman is advocating is yet one further reduction in the discretion given to locally-elected people, and that is something we should not want to embark upon without very careful thought and inquiry. There are significant differences between this matter and the reasons why we have in the past, rightly, made awards for higher degrees, for example, mandatory. The greater number of the students are in institutions outside the awarding authority's area and so on. But the case of school allowances seems to me pre-eminently a case for local discretion. I should be reluctant to take that local discretion away. I am also unhappy with the argument that we should make the allowances reflect earning power. That is exceedingly difficult. But I welcome the debate, despite the hour, because it is valuable that parents should be made increasingly aware of what is available, and that local authorities should know that we in this House are interested in the problem. Local education authorities should know that they have the discretionary powers to make the awards at the levels they determine. The hon. Gentleman gave an example. I hope that that part of the debate will have been useful—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Three o'clock a.m.