Lords Sitting of 20 April 1967

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

PENSIONERS AND SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX
3.6 p.m.
LORD WISE: 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, since an anticipated loss of £1,500,000 or more will be suffered by the Revenue in the ensuing year in the collection and refund of the selective employment tax in respect of certain old age pensioners—
1. Whether it would not be appropriate to abolish forthwith this tax imposition upon those who through its payment may generally find difficulty in purchasing the weekly necessities of life; and
2. Whether the sixty-one officials at present involved could not be released for employment in productive industry and thus become of some real assistance in the national economic struggle.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, private householders may claim refund of the selective employment tax in respect of domestic or nursing assistance if they are, or have living with them, persons over 70 years of age. It would not be feasible to relieve these householders from payment of the tax since it is impracticable for the Ministry of Social Security to distinguish between employers on National Insurance cards. The tax is normally refunded, subject to the necessary conditions being met, at quarterly intervals. In cases where they are satisfied that there is hardship, the Ministry of Social Security may arrange for monthly repayments. The question of releasing the 61 officials from their present employment does not therefore arise.
LORD WISE: My Lords, unfortunately I did not hear entirely what the noble Lord said, because he was speaking so quickly. But may I ask him a further question? Is it correct to say that the Government are not concerned about the reduction of Government expenditure and the use of clerical staff, both male and female? Is there to be no end to the creation of new jobs?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend if I spoke too quickly. It was not with any intention other than getting on with the business of the House. I made inquiries, anticipating the supplementary question, and I am satisfied that the position is that if we were to make any changes in this field it might well mean that we should have to provide an increased staff so to do.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government realise that if they wish to lessen poverty in this country it would greatly assist that aim if they remitted all selective employment tax on the employment of old-age pensioners of any sort?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have made a number of exclusions under the Act. If there is any particular hardship in the case of an old-age pensioner there are means within the social security administration for that hardship to be alleviated.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord realises how wide I am going. I am suggesting that no selective employment tax should be charged on any person who is drawing an old-age pension of any sort, since obviously it is greatly to the advantage of the economy that old-age pensioners should be encouraged to work as much as possible.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by the noble Lord. Owing to the manner in which this tax is being raised—that is, by the use of employment stamps—as I said in my original Answer it is not possible to identify the employer in every case.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is it not a fact that old-age pensioners who are in employment are able to work only

309
part-time and to earn a limited sum before their pension is affected? Does not the new proposal mean that part-time employees who are working less than 21 hours a week will be eligible for a reduction in the selective employment tax?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is quite correct, but I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, was referring to old-age pensioners who were in fact employers.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, are the Government doing nothing to make this concession known to the general public? I have the impression that it is not generally known.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I understand the position notices are displayed in the post offices where these stamps have to be purchased before they are put on the National Insurance card, but I will certainly look into the question to see whether wider publicity could be given.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he was only partially correct in agreeing with his noble friend Lord Popplewell, because old-age pensioners over the age of 70 can work for any number of hours and earn any sum of money they like; and many of them do.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I come back to my original Question? Is it not correct that in the case of old-age pensioners the selective employment tax is collected from them, thus reducing their already low standard of living; and that the Government are getting interest on the money which has been collected by its use, or misuse, and then paying it back to the old-age pensioner? Is it not also the fact that the Government lose £1½ million in carrying out this exercise? Does the noble Lord consider that this is competent administration?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend is under a misconception in regard to the figures that were given the other day. The figure of £1,500,000 is not a loss, in the sense of representing the
310
cost of the operation of S.E.T. in relation to those who have been excluded from the Act. In fact, this is a sum of money which has been collected by the purchase of stamps, and has been refunded. I am afraid that I cannot remember the other question which my noble friend asked.
LORD WISE: I mentioned the way in which the tax was collected from the old-age pensioner, or in respect of the old-age pensioner invested by the Government and repaid to the old-age pensioner, and there is a loss of £1½ million on the exercise. If the noble Lord will read what his noble friend said to me in reply to my supplementary question on April 4 he will find that the figures I have given are correct.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, first of all, the old-age pensioner we are considering is an old-age pensioner who pays for the stamp. As the noble Lord will be aware, an old-age pensioner, or for that matter any employer, may have changes of staff, and as I see it there is no way at the present moment in which we can clearly identify the stamped card of an employee who is employed by an old-age pensioner. This is the difficulty of excluding old-age pensioners from this scheme. I certainly will consider all the points that have been made, but I believe the administrative difficulties are far too great for any real change.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I inform my noble friend that the old-age pensioner who employs domestic help for any particular purpose, whether because of infirmity or any other reason pays the tax. He or she then reclaims it on a special form from the office. What my noble friend said just now is not correct.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that the employer pays this tax by the purchase of a National Insurance stamp which is affixed to the National Insurance card. There is no way at the present moment of being able to identify the card in the name of the employee, as to whether that employee is employed by an old-age pensioner or by any other form of employer.

ANGLO-FRENCH VARIABLE-GEOMETRY AIRCRAFT
3.15 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: 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, in the light of the most recent Anglo-French discussions, they still regard the proposed variable-geometry aircraft as constituting both operationally and industrially the core of our long-term aircraft programme.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, this project remains an important feature of our military and industrial programme.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Lord for his reply, might I observe that this project, which was described last year by the Government as the core of our long-term aircraft programme, has now become an "important feature" of it? May I, after that reflection, put two supplementaries to the noble Lord? Can he confirm newspaper reports that the date up to which either party can withdraw without notice from this project has been postponed from June, 1967, until January, 1969? Secondly, can he tell us anything about the prospects of German participation in this very important and very expensive project?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am able to answer the two supplementaries. Taking first the position vis-à-vis France, I would point out that when the Memorandum of Understanding was signed with France in May, 1965, provisions for withdrawal from any of the joint military projects were agreed upon, as I am sure the House will agree is necessary. It was agreed as reasonable that up to June 1, 1967, either side could withdraw without notice. After that date withdrawal became effective only 14 months after notice had been given. Because the project study and prototype phase of the programme has taken longer to settle than we originally anticipated, we have now agreed with the French to alter the date to January 1, 1969.
312
Turning to Germany, I would say that we believe that the Federal Republic may well have a requirement for an aircraft very similar to the variable-geometry aircraft now being discussed between us and the French. A number of talks have already been held with the German Air Staff on this question—notably a joint Anglo-French presentation was given to General Steinhoff and his staff in Bonn on March 1. Since then General Steinhoff has visited the British Aircraft Corporation, Warton, Rolls-Royce and Bristol. We and the French certainly intend to exert every possible effort to associate Germany with this project.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, is it correct that the French now desire a higher-performance aircraft? And if this is so, what is the British reaction to that request?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is correct. The French are asking for a somewhat different aircraft from the one we require. To go into details, it is known that the French want an interceptor, as well as a strike aircraft, which they can use from their carriers as well. We in this country are primarily interested in a strike aircraft. The precise reconciliation of these requirements so as to produce one specification for a satisfactory aircraft is not easy, but we are well on the way to completion and, as it will fulfil many roles, we believe that the aircraft will have good export prospects.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, have we acceded to the French request?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are trying to reconcile our different specifications.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, can my noble friend give any indication of the time when it is expected that the prototype of this strike aircraft will be ready to take off?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords, I cannot. All I can indicate is the date on which we agree either to marry or divorce.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the full supplementary information he has given, and

313
ask one further question? Can he confirm whether or not there is yet agreement on the project study for this aircraft?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my information is that the project study is going on at the moment. We are trying to harmonise two different concepts of the use of this aircraft.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it in fact possible to harmonise these two different concepts? Is there not a danger that we shall get an aircraft which will perform neither function properly? Secondly, have we any idea at all of what the mounting costs of this aircraft are likely to be?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, this is the problem when one tries to reconcile different objectives. However, the project is not yet absolutely firm and the date for a final decision has been postponed. The whole subject is under study now.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Order of the Day read for the Bill to be considered on Report.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be considered on Report.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, as the Amendments on the Paper in my name are all drafting Amendments I propose, with the leave of the House, to move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
In the Schedule, page 42, line 38, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")
In the Schedule, page 42, line 41, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")
In the Schedule, page 42, line 43, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")
Page 63, line 18, leave out ("(b) or (c)") and insert ("(a) or (b)")
Page 130, line 7, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("paragraph")
Page 137, line 30, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("paragraph")
Page 137, line 35, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("paragraph")
Page 224, line 50, after ("confirming") insert ("of").—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, unless any noble Lord wishes to speak to any of these Amendments, I will put to the House that the Amendments shown on the Paper be made to the Bill.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

RESERVE BANK OF RHODESIA ORDER 1967
3.22 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. This Order amends the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Order 1965, which, as your Lordships will remember, was made in December, 1965, and was approved by Parliament in the same month. I do not want to waste too much of your Lordships' time but I will briefly go over the earlier history, for those whose memories may be a little hazy. The Reserve Bank of Rhodesia was established in 1964 by an Act of the Southern Rhodesia Legislature entitled the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Act 1964. This provided for the affairs of the Bank to be run by a board of directors consisting of a governor, a deputy governor and a board of directors consisting of not less than five nor more than seven.
After the illegal declaration of independence in November, 1965, it became necessary to prevent the then board of directors of the Bank of Salisbury from continuing to exercise authority in the name of the Bank. This was especially needed because of the fairly large accounts held by the Bank outside Southern Rhodesia. Accordingly, the 1965 Order was made. Article 2 of this Order suspended from office the people who immediately before the Order came into force were the governor, the deputy governor and other directors of the Reserve Bank. Article 3 of that Order empowered the Secretary of State, so long as the Order remained in force, to appoint other persons to be the governor, deputy governor and directors of the Bank. These constituted for the time being the board of directors of the Bank.
The power vested in the Secretary of State by Article 3 of the Order was at once exercised, and a governor and other directors were appointed. The governor

315
was, as your Lordships will recollect, Sir Sydney Caine, and the other directors were Viscount Harcourt, Lord Poole, Sir Norman Kipping, Sir Gordon Munro and Sir Siegmund Warburg. The primary function of this new board was to locate the external assets of the Reserve Bank, and, once they had located them, to assert their authority over them. This was to prevent the illegal régime from applying them towards the furtherance of the rebellion and to preserve them for the people of Rhodesia as a whole until such time as constitutional Government should be restored. This exercise has now been completed and, if I may say so, it has been carried out with great skill and energy, for which the people of Southern Rhodesia owe a great debt of gratitude to Sir Sydney Caine and to his distinguished colleagues.
Now that the board has done its main job, there is no longer the same need for a full board of directors of the Bank. What now remains to be done can be done adequately by one man, with an alternate deputising for him whenever necessary. His job in the future would be a mixture between those ordinarily exercised by the governor and other directors of a reserve bank, and those ordinarily exercised by a trustee, as there is a quite considerable element of trusteeship in this operation. So it has been decided to replace the existing offices of governor and directors of the Bank by a single office, the holder of which would be formally styled "Governor and trustee". This briefly is the explanation of the purpose and the effect of this Order.
To turn to the Order itself, Article 1 is concerned with purely formal matters. Article 2 revokes Article 3 of the Order of 1965, the original Order to which I have just referred. This revoked Article empowered the Secretary of State to appoint a governor and other directors, and regulated the functions of such people. It is replaced by a fresh Article 3, paragraph (a) of which establishes the new office of governor and trustee, and provides that the functions which are conferred on him are to be exercisable in place of the functions of the office of governor, deputy governor and the other directors, and in place of the functions of a board of directors as a whole.
316
Paragraph (b) deals with the appointment and tenure of office of the governor and trustee, and in no way differs materially from the equivalent provision in the Order of 1965. Paragraph (c) makes corresponding provision for the appointment of an alternate to the governor and trustee; and paragraph (d) provides for the alternate to be able to exercise the functions of the office of governor and trustee at any time. I do not think there is any need to spell out in detail the circumstances in which the alternate would act as governor and trustee. Clearly, the provision is designed for such cases as when the governor and trustee may be unable to fulfil his function, because he is ill or travelling abroad or cannot easily be reached. Paragraph (e) makes provision for the remuneration and allowances of the governor and trustee and for the alternate. This again corresponds substantially to a provision in the 1965 Order.
At this point I should like to pay tribute to the public spirit and to the high sense of duty of Sir Sydney Caine and his colleagues under the 1965 Order. They have not taken any remuneration for their great services. Paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) deal with the functions to be exercised by the governor and trustee. This Order empowers him—indeed, it declares it to be his general duty—to take all the necessary or expedient steps for the purpose of preserving and protecting the property of the Bank, wherever it may be found, and to prevent unauthorised persons from acting or purporting to act on behalf of the Bank, or disposing of its property, or from acting in any way that may be to the prejudice of the Bank's interests.
This, of course, is the function which has largely occupied the board which was appointed in 1965. The fact that they have succeeded so well makes it unlikely that the governor and trustee will have as much to do as the board did in the past, but, all the same, this will probably still remain the principal task of the governor and trustee. In addition, the governor and trustee is required to take such steps as seem to him necessary or expedient to carry on the business of the Bank or to enable it to be carried on. At the moment this is not likely to be a very heavy task, but there have been, and no doubt there will be again, occasions

317
when it needs to be carried out, for example in connection with the Bank's dealings with other central and reserve banks. And, of course, when the time comes for a lawful Government to be restored in Rhodesia there will probably be a transitional period when this provision is of considerable importance. In short, the governor and trustee is authorised to exercise all the lawful powers of the board of directors of the Bank or of any individual director, and may, in particular, enter into any financial and similar property transactions which the directors could lawfully have entered into.
Finally, paragraph (i) repeats the provision of the Order of 1965 under which the Secretary of State can give binding directions relating to the policy of the Bank or the exercise of the powers and duties vested in the governor and trustee. The remaining provision of the present Order is Article 3, which is purely a transitional one. It provides for the person who last held office as governor under the Order of 1965, that is to say, Sir Sydney Caine, to carry on in office as the first governor and trustee without the necessity for a formal reappointment. The other directors holding office under the 1965 Order have given up their office, since the effect of the revocation and replacement of the Article under which they were appointed was to abolish the offices which they held.
I hope that this explains the purpose and the effect of this Order, but there are two further comments which I should like to add. The first is to explain that, though the desirability of making this change was realised before the end of last year and was agreed with the then board, before the change could be put into effect litigation was started in the German courts over the bank notes which the illegal régime in Rhodesia were trying to have printed and exported to Rhodesia for their use. In order to avoid confusing this litigation the change was postponed until the litigation itself had been disposed of. This is why the Order was not made until the end of last month.
The second comment which I should like to make is once again to repeat the thanks of Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure of your Lordships, to the retiring directors of the Bank—and that, of course, includes Sir Gordon Monro, who
318
retired some time ago because of ill-health—for the very great services which they have rendered in preserving the funds held by the Bank on behalf of the people of Southern Rhodesia. When lawful government is restored these funds will be available for rebuilding and restoring the prosperity and sound financial position of Southern Rhodesia. Our thanks also go to Sir Sydney Caine himself, not only for what he has so far done as governor but also for agreeing to stay on for the time being both as governor and as trustee. The debt we owe him is a continuing one. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Order 1967 be approved.—(Lord Walston.)
3.35 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Order and the Order which the noble Lord will move very shortly, the second Order, amend in a comparatively minor way Orders which have already been passed; consequently they reflect a policy which is already well known to your Lordships and to which our attitude on this side of the House is equally well known. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for his full explanation. But for the usual courtesies of this House, I might even have called it an over-full explanation. But what he has said has merely described the Order and it is unexceptionable, I think, in the light of Government policy.
In regard to the second Order—and here perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for anticipating, since I do not want to get up and make another speech—may I ask the noble Lord this question? It seems to me that it will be necessary, for the proper regulation of that Order, for some prior knowledge to be held on the Government's part. How are the Government going to hold that prior knowledge which will enable that Order to come into force? That is the only question I have to ask on the second Order. As I say, I think these Orders are only minor amendments to Orders which have already been passed, and I would certainly recommend noble Lords on this side of the House not to oppose them.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I am sorry to have to rise to take a slightly different line from my

319
noble friend Lord Carrington. I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to what was said by the Minister of State for the Commonwealth Office when introducing one of these Orders in another place. He said this:
"This Order is an essential step to tighten up the enforcement machinery of our existing sections. It is a reminder to the people of Southern Rhodesia, both black and white, that until legality is restored there the sanctions grip will get tighter and tighter".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 18/4/67, col. 441.]
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, and ask him whether he is speaking to the Order which I have moved, or that which I am going to move?
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: I was speaking to the next Order, but my noble friend Lord Carrington referred in his remarks to both Orders, and I am doing the same. In view of what the Minister in another place said, it is quite obvious that in introducing these Orders the Government have not only in mind any tidying up of previous Orders, but they want to remind the people of Southern Rhodesia of their whole policy, and in fact to give them a warning about it. In those circumstances surely we are entitled, when discussing these Orders here, to bring under review the whole policy of the Government of which these Orders are supposed to remind people. If we are not allowed to do that here, I can only say that the Minister is repudiating what his colleague said in another place. Therefore, I propose to say something about the whole policy of the Government.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, might I intervene? What the House considers relevant is entirely for the House to determine, but I would offer my very strong opinion—my own opinion—that the noble Lord would be quite out of order if he proceeded along the lines which he has just explained to us. I need not remind him of Standing Order No. 26 which reads:
"Every motion, after it has been moved, shall be proposed from the Woolsack or the Chair before debate thereon. Debate must be relevant to the question before the House, and, where more than one question has been put, the debate must be relevant to the last
320
question so proposed until it has been disposed of."
It is always a matter of opinion, as the noble Lord with his experience elsewhere knows, whether something is relevant or not, but taking for the moment the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, of this particular Order as "a minor amendment of policy", I would say that if the noble Lord is trying, as he seems to be, to start a general Rhodesia debate, he is quite out of order, and I imagine that that will be the opinion of the House. Whether it proves to be so, of course, we shall have to test, if necessary.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I do not at all dissent from the advice which my noble leader, Lord Carrington, has given. I think that it would be quite wrong to divide on this. But I think that the Leader of the House has raised some extremely important points in taking issue with my noble friend. I should like to put this to him. If it is out of order to have such a discussion as he was trying to initiate, why was it entirely in order in another place to have exactly the same kind of discussion? It is quite true that we cannot be called to order by the noble Lord on the Woolsack, and that we are the judges of what is in order. But it would be rather a curious situation if we in this House took the view that the sort of discussion, on exactly the same issue, that was considered wholly in order in another place, where there are the authorities to call people to order, were entirely out of order here. I should like the noble Earl to consider that point.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, of course, I have not in front of me—and I do not suppose most Members of the House have in front of them—details of what took place elsewhere. But I do not think the noble Earl would seriously argue that we must be governed in this House by what takes place elsewhere. I should be very much surprised if he took that line. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, wishes to deal with, but assuming that he wants to launch this House this afternoon into a general Rhodesian debate—which I understand he does—on what has been described by the Leader of the Opposition (to take

321
someone who can be regarded as objective) as a minor amendment, I submit that if anything was ever going to be out of order in this House that would be.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am sorry; but we are entirely entitled to decide for ourselves what is in order here, and we are not, of course, bound by what is done in another place. On the other hand, the noble Earl is not slow to remind us, on almost every occasion, that we must not run counter to what is done in another place and that that would be very unconstitutional of us. It would seem rather strange if, when a procedure has been regarded as entirely in order in another place, we were to decide here that it is wholly out of order. It may be that that is what we shall decide to do, but it may have implications, in other debates and on other constitutional issues, which the noble Earl will not find quite so convenient.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I have too great a regard for the integrity of the noble Earl the Leader of the House to think that he is opposing my suggestion for any reason of inconvenience. But I think what he is really doing is to repudiate what his colleague has said in another place, because it was clearly said there that these Orders were designed almost as a threat to Rhodesia, and that unless she toed the line, further things would happen to her. If the Orders are introduced in that spirit, I suggest that it is very wrong to say that we cannot discuss the policy under which they are being brought in. If they are merely tidying-up Orders, that is a different matter; but that is not what was said about them in another place, and I gather that that is not what the noble Earl is saying here—or is he?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, now fears that the next Order, which has not yet been moved, will be moved in a certain spirit. He is not, I gather, referring to the spirit in which this Order has been moved, but he fears the spirit of the later one. As to that, of course he must make up his own mind, but I have no reason whatever to suppose that the spirit of the next Order will be different from the spirit in which this one has been
322
moved. But I would point out—and speaking, as the noble Lord will realise, without much notice—that what happened elsewhere is not perhaps quite what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, supposes. The noble Lord and the House will forgive me for not having made a preliminary study of this issue, as I did not know that it was going to come up in this form. But I have been handed one quotation, when the Deputy Speaker intervened and said:
"Order. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman"—
that was Mr. Paget—
"that the scope of the debate on this Order is very limited. We are merely concerned with"—
so-and-so.
"We cannot enter into a general discussion of sanctions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 18/4/67, col. 447.]
So I am afraid it would be quite wrong to imply that the Speaker elsewhere did allow a general Rhodesian debate. It just was not so. So I beg the noble Lord, in the light of this, to restrict himself to the Order.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House what interpretation he puts on the Twentieth Report from the Special Orders Committee in which, in regard to the second Order, they say:
"That the Order raises important questions of policy."?
And they go on to say:
"… in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed without special attention."
What do they mean by "special attention"?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, with great respect to all noble Lords who have reached the second Order, I would point out that the Government have not yet reached it. So I do not feel called upon to interpret it at this stage. I do not want to hold up the House, but I hope that the noble Lord will try to restrict himself to the Order.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, so far as this Order is concerned I have a remark to make, but it will be quite short. But I shall raise the other point again on the second Order,

323
because I really believe that the policy should come under review.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I say that we shall see what happens when we get there.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, on this particular Order which we are discussing, all I have to say is this. It seems to me that the effect of the Order is to relieve from embarrassment certain gentlemen who have been serving on the Reserve Bank set up by the original Order. One can understand their embarrassment when one of the results of the operations of this Bank has been that liabilities of Rhodesian loans which were guaranteed by Her Majesty's Government have been repudiated, and they have been repudiated through the actions of this Board—possibly, although I do not know, on the instructions of the Government.
They have held certain Rhodesian monies which would have been devoted to the service of Rhodesian loans, and there has been default on those securities. I can well imagine the feeling of any merchant bankers in the City of London involved in that sort of thing, and I can only imagine that it must be with a great sense of relief that this Order releases them from that most embarrassing position. So far as this Order is concerned, I think your Lordships might well pass it, because it might do something to restore the credit of the City of London.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (PROHIBITED TRADE AND DEALINGS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1967
3.47 p.m.
LORD WALSTON LORD WALSTON rose to move, That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) (Amendment) Order 1967, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am in somewhat of a quandary over this Order, because the very courteous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who I am glad to see is back refreshed from temporary absence, indicated with the utmost tact that I had spoken at rather too great a length. On the other hand, the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury,
324
started to make indicated that it was rather important for me to go into this second Order in some detail. I think that perhaps in this case discretion will not be the better part of valour. I shall not be so discreet, and, if your Lordships will bear with me, I shall be somewhat lengthier than I might otherwise have been, in order to explain the situation very fully to the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, and his friends.
The object of this Order—and possibly this is the most important part of what I have to say—is to tighten up existing machinery for the enforcement of existing sanctions. That is why it is being brought into force and put before your Lordships today. Prior to this Order it was possible for people in this country—British nationals—to do something which, although not specifically forbidden by legislation would, in fact, help other non-British subjects to do something which is forbidden by existing Orders. That, clearly, would be contrary to the whole spirit of our policy of sanctions towards Southern Rhodesia, which has been discussed at length in the past and which, so far as I can see, is not to-day a subject for discussion. In addition, it is necessary to tighten up in this respect, in order to comply with the resolution of the United Nations Security Council passed not very long ago.
In most cases, no doubt, the effect of preventing our nationals from assisting the completion of certain transactions would prevent those transactions from going through, and in that way we should further our sanctions policy in a real and valuable manner. But even if such cases were not to arise—cases where our measures are not effective in preventing such transactions from taking place—it is necessary and important for us to do, and to be seen to have done, all that is possible to prevent our own nationals from engaging in such transactions, and in that way to have discharged scrupulously the obligation laid upon us in international law by the Security Council resolution. That, my Lords, is the background to this Order.
Let me now turn to the Order itself. Article 1 of the Order deals with such matters as citation, starting date and interpretation. As regards starting date, because of a particular case to which I shall refer later it was thought necessary

325
to bring this Order into operation as soon as it was made and before it could be formally laid before Parliament. The procedure laid down by the Statutory Instrument Act 1946 for cases of this sort was of course complied with, and the Order was in fact laid before the House at the earliest possible moment, which was later on the day of making.
Article 2 of the Order is, I suppose, really the guts of the whole Order. It amends the Order of 1966 by inserting in it a new article, Article 8A. This confers powers on the Secretary of State in relation to the transfer of the ownership of property overseas where it appears to him that such transfer might facilitate the contravention or evasion of the Order of 1966 or of the Petroleum Order of 1965, and where those who are subject to the article have such an interest as would give them a say in whether the ownership of the property should be transferred. In most cases they would be in this position because they themselves owned the property, but the article also covers cases where their ability to influence the disposal of the property arises in other ways—for example, because they are shareholders or because the property cannot be transferred without their agreement.
The article operates in this way. It does not operate directly on the property in question, since this might be open to objection as involving us in attempting an exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction. Instead, it operates on persons who have a specified interest in the property and who are themselves unquestionably subject to our jurisdiction. Accordingly, it empowers the Secretary of State, where he considers that a transfer of the property in question carries a risk of the sort I have just described, to direct any person to whom the article applies to take or to refrain from taking such action in relation to the property as the directions may specify. Failure to comply with the directions is a criminal offence. Both the property and the persons coming within the scope of the article are defined in paragraph (2) as consisting of
"citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, British subjects without citizenship or British protected persons and all bodies incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom".
Articles 3 and 4 of the Order contain certain ancillary provisions. Article 3
326
inserts a new paragraph in Article 10 of the Order of 1966 dealing with procedure in prosecutions for contraventions of the new Article 8A. In such cases, if the prosecution prove, first, that directions have been given under that article in relation to that property and, secondly, that the ownership of that property has nevertheless been transferred, the burden of proving that the directions were in fact complied with will then pass to the person to whom they were given. In view of the fact that, by definition, the transactions in question concern property in other countries, I think your Lordships will agree that this is not an unreasonable provision, particularly since the question whether there has been compliance with the directions must, of its very nature, be a question peculiarly within the knowledge of the persons concerned.
Article 4 merely makes the necessary adaptations to Articles 9, 10(5) and 11(1) of the Order of 1966, and to Schedule 3 to that Order, so that where they have to be invoked for the purposes of the new Article 8A the powers which they confer in ordinary cases on the Treasury is exercisable instead by a Secretary of State. Articles 9 and 11(1) of the Order of 1966 and Schedule 3 to that Order deal with the obtaining of evidence and information relating to the evasion or contravention of the Order and Article 10(5) limits the power to institute or authorise prosecutions so as to ensure that prosecutions are not brought lightly or vexatiously.
My Lords, let me now turn to the particular case which I have already mentioned and which helped to bring us to the conclusion that this new Order was necessary. This is the case of the oil pipe-line which runs from Beira in Mozambique to the oil refinery at Feruka in Rhodesia. The background to the ownership of this pipe-line and the right to operate it is somewhat complicated. The actual ownership of the pipe-line itself is vested in a Mozambique company, C.P.M.R., in which approximately 40 per cent. of the shares are owned by Portuguese nationals and approximately 60 per cent. are owned by the United Kingdom company Lonrho Limited. Lonrho have a number of directors on the board of C.P.M.R., but, owing to the requirements of local law, the Portuguese directors are in a majority.
There are two relevant concessions relating to this pipe-line. The one relating to Portuguese territory was granted by the Mozambique Government to C.P.M.R., and the one relating to Rhodesian territory was granted by the Government of Rhodesia to Lonrho. Each concession provides that it cannot be assigned or disposed of without the consent of the Government concerned.
Despite this somewhat complicated legal set-up, the fact that Lonrho has a 60 per cent. majority shareholding in C.P.M.R. and also holds the Rhodesian concession has in the past played a valuable part in preventing oil from being pumped up the pipe-line into Rhodesia in contravention of our sanctions. However, because of the Portuguese majority on the board of C.P.M.R., it has not been a complete assurance, come what may. With the passage of the Security Council resolution on this matter in April of last year the question has to some extent become less important, since the steps which we and others have taken to prevent the shipment of oil to Beira for onward transmission to Rhodesia have so far been completely successful. For all that, it would be wrong for us to relax our guard, and we do not wish United Kingdom nationals or companies to be seen to be co-operating in any steps which might lead to sanctions being circumvented.
We therefore felt it was a serious matter when Lonrho Limited recently told Her Majesty's Government that certain foreign companies were interested in buying both C.P.M.R. and Lonrho out of the pipeline by purchasing the undertaking and the related concessions. The Lonrho directors very properly accepted that a good title to the concession in Rhodesia could not be transferred without the consent of the lawful Rhodesian Government, for which we alone, in present circumstances, can speak, and I think it is fair to say that they were not surprised when we told them that we could not consent. They pointed out quite fairly that their duty towards their Portuguese partners in C.P.M.R. might make it difficult for them to refuse to co-operate in any projected sale of the undertaking. They also pointed out that they could not guarantee that their failure to provide a good title
328
to the concession would necessarily be an effective obstacle. In fairness to the directors of Lonrho Limited, I should explain that they have since made it clear that they were not suggesting that they would themselves willingly and freely cooperate in any transaction which ran counter to our policy in this matter, but circumstances clearly might have arisen in which, in the absence of any legal impediment, they would have had no real option in this matter.
In the circumstances the Government took the view—and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it was the only view that could have been taken—that measures must be taken to prevent Lonrho Limited from lending their assistance to a sale of the pipeline of the sort that they indicated was being contemplated. It did not matter for this purpose whether Lonrho's participation was given freely or reluctantly. The important matter was, and is, that a United Kingdom company should not participate at all. Hence the making of this Order and the serving on Lonrho of directions under it immediately after it was made. Broadly speaking, the effect of these directions is to prevent Lonrho transferring to any other person their interest in the pipeline or any related concessions; to prevent them allowing C.P.M.R. to transfer its interest in the pipeline and concessions; and to prevent their relinquishing to any other person their present shares in C.P.M.R. and such powers as they at present have to control the affairs of C.P.M.R.
As I have said, this Order was brought into operation with immediate effect, and the directions to Lonrho were served on them on the same day; that is, March 15, 1967. This was thought necessary because we understood that the discussions for the possible sale of the pipeline had got beyond the preliminary stage. We wanted to prevent any irrevocable step being taken. On this aspect of the matter, it is only right to add that the directors of Lonrho, as soon as they knew of the directions that we had made, made it clear that they would of course comply with the directions in every respect.
I have already said that the Lonrho case is not the only one we had in mind in making this Order. Out of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I will not go into details of other

329
cases where we might have to invoke these powers, but as a purely hypothetical example there may be, for instance, the sale of other kinds of transport facilities and undertakings which could be used either for the importation into Rhodesia of prohibited goods, or for their exportation from Rhodesia. I can, however, assure your Lordships that, just as the decision to make the directions in this particular case was not taken without careful consideration, we shall not make any further directions under the Order without being sure that they are strictly necessary and, where the circumstances permit, without searching for other ways of maintaining both sanctions and our international reputation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) (Amendment) Order 1967, be approved.—(Lord Walston.)
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he be good enough to say whether it is intended that this Order should serve as a warning and a reminder to the people of Rhodesia that sanctions will be relentlessly pursued; or is it merely intended that the Order hardly need be published in Rhodesia as it is simply an administrative matter? Could he say that?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing hidden behind this Order. That was the reason for my making so full a speech, in spite of the warning of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The noble Lord need have no fear that there is any hidden implication.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: But the noble Lord has not answered my question.
4.4 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should apologise for having spoken on the last Order in the obviously mistaken impression that it might speed things up. I hope I am not letting my noble friend down when I say that I still think this is a comparatively minor point. But I should like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Walston, how the Government are to know that property is about to be transferred. In the case of Lonrho, the directors told the Government that they had had this proposal. Therefore the
330
Government were enabled to bring in this Order and to act in the way they have acted. How, in the future, will the Government know that any property is about to be transferred?—unless they have industrial spies all over the world. It is for this reason that I am inclined to think that this Order is not really of very much importance.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend raises obviously wider subjects, I wonder whether I might raise one legal point which troubles me. The noble Lord, in expounding this Order, explained the pains taken by Her Majesty's Government to avoid getting into legal difficulties under International Law. I wonder whether they have been entirely successful in this. If the noble Lord will look at the terms of Article 8A, which will become the law under Paragraph 2 of this Order; and if he will look at paragraph (2) of that new Article 8A, he will see:
"The persons to whom this Article applies are all persons who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies."
Let me stop there; that is sufficient to raise this point. Nothing is said about where they are resident.
In the case which the noble Lord quoted he was dealing with a company incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom and with directors residing within the jurisdiction. But if Her Majesty's Government purport to give orders to all persons who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, wherever they may be resident, they may surely find themselves in this difficulty, that such persons may receive a direction which the Government of this country believe to be legal for them to comply with, a direction, in fact, with which they desire that it shall be obligatory for them to comply, but they may find themselves in a country whose local law tells them that they must do nothing of the sort. In those circumstances, it seems to me that they may get into the precise sort of legal difficulty which Her Majesty's Government thought they were avoiding. I can imagine that this may be a little difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to reply to immediately, but if the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack thinks there is anything in the point, perhaps he could tell me what the answer is to a genuine difficulty which I feel.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I apologise to the House, but I feel that I must return to the point I made on the last Order because with all respect I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, answered my point. If this Order is simply intended to be an administrative matter, there are certainly some serious points to be raised about it. But it does not raise a question of general policy. But if, as was said in another place, both these Orders were intended as additional warnings to the people of Southern Rhodesia as to what is likely to happen to them if they did not return to so-called legality, it raises a question of policy, and naturally one is entirely in your Lordship's hands in this matter. But in view of the Twentieth Report of our Special Orders Committee, to which my noble friend has already referred, and the fact that this Order, certainly in another place, was designed to be a warning to Rhodesia, I suggest that we should be allowed to draw attention to where the present policies of the Government in regard to Rhodesia are likely to lead. That is what I wish to do.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I rise on a point of Order, and I am impelled to do so in view of what my noble Leader has already said. I am feeling very concerned about the way in which the noble Lord is now proceeding. I had the honour to serve on the chairman's panel of another place for many years, and in those days the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, was Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons and also Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. I must express my complete astonishment that the noble Lord, who has held those appointments in another place, should be proceeding along these lines in your Lordships' House this afternoon. It seems to me, in view of what my noble Leader read out, that the ruling of the Deputy Speaker in another place the other night makes it perfectly clear; and the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, who had so much experience of this sort of thing would, were he in the Chair in another place, be very embarrassed by the line which he himself is now taking. I feel that at this stage the House ought to let the noble Lord know that it does not desire him to proceed with his present argument.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Royle, for the charm with which he has raised this personal issue; but let me tell him that if anybody in another place had raised the point of order with me—whether, after the Minister's remarks, the debate was open to a discussion on policy—my only answer would have been "Yes".
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I hesitate to continue this procedural discussion, but having looked quickly through the Report of the discussion in another place, I see that the speeches which were permitted, and which undoubtedly went on for some considerable time, were linked to the Order. Nobody could object to a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, which was focused on the Order; but a speech which departed from the Order and ranged into the whole question of Rhodesian policy was clearly ruled out of order in another place, and I am bound to say that I think that, so long as any rules of relevance exist here, it should be ruled out of order here.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I do not want to weary your Lordships over this; but, of course, my point was never raised in another place, and so it is really not relevant to pray that in aid. If it is the opinion of your Lordships' House that I am wrong, of course I accept it; but I am not sure that that was the general opinion of your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I try to help in this case?—because, like the noble Lord, I am a great "stickler" for the right procedure. It is true that another place (which is really what the noble Lord behind him is censuring) did not engage in a general discussion on the merits of sanctions. It was an enormously long debate and in some respects, I thought, not a particularly interesting one. I went to the trouble of reading practically the whole of it. What I think the House was concentrating on was this—and it surely must be entirely relevant to a discussion here. Here, under this Order a very large number of possible penalties and offences are being put on to British subjects, many of whom may be put in jeopardy. The argument was that that was what the

333
Order did, and that in so doing it might well do harm to this country and could not have the faintest effect on Rhodesia. That, to sum it up. whether it was right or wrong, was the argument. Nothing that is done in the Order can prevent either Portugal or South Africa, or Rhodesia, from doing whatever they choose to do.
Would not the noble Earl the Leader of the House agree that argument on those lines here would be strictly in order in dealing with this Order which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, with his characteristic courtesy, has explained to your Lordships' House in such a great detail but that we should not be in order in having a general debate about whether or not sanctions were right? That seems to me, if that is agreeable to the House, to be right. It seems to me that that would be consistent with what happened in another place, where I think equally that they were right, and we should be wrong if we limited the debate in the way that (perhaps I misunderstood him) I thought the Leader of the House was suggesting.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether, with the permission of your Lordships' House, I might say a word. Technically, I have exhausted my right to speak, and so I am out of order; but if your Lordships would allow me to say a word on this, I would support what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said. The difficulty is that we are all talking about a speech which my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury has not yet made, and so it is a little difficult to know whether or not he is going to be in order or out of order when he makes it. I should have thought that if my noble friend confined himself to the issues which arise as a result of the Order, he would be perfectly in order in this House. But I would, with respect, have said to him that I think that if he were to attempt to discuss the whole issue of sanctions, and whether or not sanctions are likely to be operative and likely to be successful on the Rhodesian issue, he would perhaps be out of order.
The difficulty about any Rules of Order in your Lordships' House is that there is no way of preventing any noble Lord from saying what he wishes to say without moving a Motion that he be no longer heard. I think that is a very bad thing,
334
for two reasons. First, it is a wrong thing to do in this House; we ought so to arrange our affairs that we do not have to do it. Secondly, I think it is a very bad thing because, since the Motion is debatable, it takes far more time to listen to the debate than to hear out the noble Lord who was originally thought to be out of order.
Therefore, my Lords, I should have thought that my noble friend, having heard the advice given by the noble Earl the Leader of the House and by my noble friend Lord Swinton, should make up his mind whether he feels that the speech he would have delivered, if he had not heard what we have all said, would or would not have been in order.
4.17 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for taking up so much time, but it is quite obvious to me, from the general sense of what my noble friends Lord Swinton and Lord Carrington have said, that the speech I was going to make would, in their view, be out of order; therefore I shall have to bow to what I think is the general view and not make the speech I had intended to make. Nevertheless, I think we must find some other occasion when the whole policy of the Government with regard to Rhodesia may be brought into focus, because it is contributing to all the ills, or many of the ills, from which we now suffer, and I do not think the country realises it. I will not say more, because I should be straying beyond what I believe may be your Lordships' wish to be the compass of my remarks.
I think that here again we have an Order which is comparatively innocuous in one respect. There is nothing in the Order that would be completely enforceable. Suppose that the de facto Government of Rhodesia decided to nationalise their bit of the pipe-line and Mozambique decided to nationalise theirs, there is nothing that this Order could do to stop them from doing it. So it is another of the absurdities and humiliations which this Government is bringing upon the country over their Rhodesian policy. But there is, I think, another side to the Order. I am not quite clear how far it goes. Let me give an instance—I may be quite wrong, but I should like a reply to this. The death may occur in Rhodesia of someone

335
who owns property there, and it may be necessary, in winding-up the estate, that the property be sold. I suppose it would be possible for the Government to say, "This property is being sold to nationals who wish to upset the sanctions policy of the Government." Would they be able to step in and prevent the sale of that property and prevent the winding-up of that estate? I give that as an instance simply to indicate the sort of mess, the sort of complications, that the Government are getting us into over this sanctions policy in Rhodesia.
Well, my Lords, as I say, as it is not the wish of the House, obviously, that the wider aspects of this problem should be discussed to-day, as I had hoped to do, I shall leave it at that. But I should be very grateful to the Government if they would give me an answer as to how wide this second Order can be made to go.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, may I just add one or two sentences from the humble Back Benches of your Lordships' House and say that I bow to the wishes of the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, but I do think it is rather a lot to ask of me. I have always opposed the use of sanctions, which I regard as a wanton and wicked attempt to ruin the economy of Rhodesia without any regard to who gets hurt in the process. That is all I wish to say, my Lords; but I think that as often as this question comes up and there is a tightening of what I regard as this wicked action I surely am entitled to say that, although I may sit here and make no further speech on the subject, my opposition to this brutal policy remains completely unchanged, and I share that opinion with a growing number of the people of this country.
4.20 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I will try briefly to answer the questions which have been raised. With the greatest respect, I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, that it is perhaps better to decide what one is going to say when one has heard the speech to be answered, rather than read the speech made in another place which is expected to be repeated here. That avoids certain complications. I can only repeat the intention of this Order. There is no question of its acting as a warning,
336
threat or anything else to anybody. The intention is simply to tighten up the existing regulations, which have already been debated and approved, and to plug loopholes which may have appeared or are likely to appear. Whether this will act as a warning to people who would otherwise think of trying to circumvent these Orders or not, I do not know, but the object is to plug the loopholes and tighten up existing regulations. I do not think that the noble Lord will expect me to follow him in detail into the hypothetical case he put forward of the Rhodesian landlord who dies.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord said he was not going to follow up what I said, but it raises what may be a very important point for the individual, and I really think that we should know how far this Order does go.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to finish my sentence? Having said that I shall not follow him into all the ramifications of his hypothetical case, may I say that the object of both these Orders is not to prevent property from passing into the hands of people whose views may be counter to those of the noble Lord or myself, Her Majesty's Government or whoever it may be. We do not have investigation of views. The criterion is whether the passing of that property into other hands is going to further the evasion of sanctions and getting round the United Nations Security Council's resolution. That is the criterion we adhere to, and it has nothing whatever to do with the beliefs, desires, doctrines or anything else of the buyer or the seller.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, raised an intricate legal point, which he most politely and charmingly suggested I was not qualified to answer. He is perfectly right in that; I am not qualified to answer, but I will attempt to give a brief answer to the question. There is nothing which prevents our passing legislation which is binding upon our own citizens, wherever they may be residing at the moment. In certain cases, I fully admit, it may be unenforceable, depending on the extradition treaties and arrangements we have with foreign countries. But the fact that somebody may commit an offence under British law and then find himself in, or move himself into, a country with

337
which we have no international agreement or treaty is surely no reason for saying that we should not pass a law of this kind. I think that this is the analogy that we should bear in mind in this case.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked me how we shall know if other properties are to be transferred or not. We have known that this particular property was to be transferred, largely because of the co-operation and good sense of duty of the British directors of Lonrho. I have no reason to think that there are other companies who would be any less patriotic, public-spirited and correct in their actions, but even if they are not, one gets to know these things without having a whole army of industrial spies. There are rumours and little bits of information going about which come to one's ears. I do not expect that this will happen. I have no reason for suggesting that it will happen. All I can say is that in the one case where it has already happened this Order has proved extremely valuable and has justified itself on that ground, if there were never any other case. And if any other cases were contemplated in future, the existence of this Order will go a long way to plugging this particular loophole. I apologise for detaining your Lordships so long on this matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill.
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on recommitment of the Bill.
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
4.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a small but
338
important measure, and I propose to be brief because I am sure that it will meet with the goodwill of all sides of the House. Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 requires that every British foreign-going ship and every British home trade passenger ship when leaving United Kingdom ports must carry deck and engineer officers holding British certificates according to the scale laid down in that Act. Similar requirements are found in the shipping legislation of Commonwealth and Colonial territories and apply to any British ship when in the ports of one of those territories.
In recent years attention has been drawn by both sides of the shipping industry to a small number of British ships on the United Kingdom Register which are owned by British subsidiaries of foreign interests. These vessels appear to have been transferred to the United Kingdom flag to avoid restrictions placed upon them by their own Governments and to take advantage of British consular services. The ships involved never call at any British port, thus avoiding the requirement in respect of certificated officers. The ships are usually manned entirely by foreign crews, and their standard of safey cannot then be assured.
The purpose of this Bill is under Clause 1(2) to extend the requirement to carry officers holding British certificates to all British foreign going ships registered in the United Kingdom, whenever and wherever they put to sea. It also provides certain automatic exemptions if a ship finds itself short of one officer below the required complement, and provides for a new penal provision. In order to supply a necessary degree of flexibility to meet those occasions when, despite the fact that all reasonable steps have been taken to secure a duly certificated person, these have been unsuccessful, the Bill provides by Clause 1(3) that when a British ship registered in the United Kingdom goes to sea from a place outside the United Kingdom, it may, in certain circumstances, sail for a limited period short of one of the required certificated officers. This period will last for 28 days or until a certificated substitute is found, whichever is the shorter. Clause 1(4) of the Bill deletes the existing Section 92(2), which relates to offences and penalties, and replaces it by a new subsection which clarifies the offences

339
which may be committed and provides for increased penalties.
This, as I have indicated, is a small measure, but it is an important one with regard to maintaining the high prestige of the British Merchant Navy. The Bill originated in another place, where it was promoted by Mr. Ogden of Liverpool, West Derby. In the other place its Second Reading and Third Reading were entirely formal, and the Committee stage occupied only a few minutes. For this reason, I, too, have been brief in my remarks. Naturally, there is a whole background of information that could be supplied to support its adoption, and I have it with me and will supply it if necessary. The Bill has the support of both sides of the shipping industry. It is supported by all Parties and also by the Board of Trade. In fact, it has been generally welcomed by the Press and wherever publicity has been given to it, and I hope that it will similarly commend itself to this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Popplewell.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, for explaining the purposes of this Bill to us so clearly and succinctly. I assure him that from this side of the House we give it a warm welcome. The Bill is limited in scope, but very practical in value, and it will, as I understand it, seal up a loophole in the law which seems to have been exploited in recent years by some foreign interests. I should like particularly to congratulate the promoters of the Bill, who have been most successful in reaching agreement with all the interested parties, who are quite considerable in this field, including, I understand, not only the Shipping Federation, but the airline officers and the Merchant Navy, as well as the bodies mentioned by the noble Lord.
The purpose of the Bill, to require all British ships irrespective of whether they start from or call at a British port, to have their full complement of British certificated officers is obviously right, and would have been included in the original Bill had present-day developments been anticipated. The noble Lord has helpfully explained the purposes of subsection
340
(3) of Clause 1, which gives the necessary flexibility to meet any emergency. I understand that the loophole to which I referred has been used by some foreign shipping companies who have established British subsidiaries for the Cuba trade, where perhaps their own countries have made regulations which prevented them from trading direct. This has been a convenient device for them. In addition, as the noble Lord has said, they have had the advantage of British consular services, which we often criticise here, but which are obviously better than anybody else's, and are therefore valuable to them.
There is this further point which I think is worth mentioning. In addition to these ships which have been sailing deficient in certificated officers being a danger to themselves, they have done a great deal of harm to the British reputation, particularly in the United States, where the odium of the offence has been visited on this country. So this Bill is in every way to be welcomed, and from this side of the House we give it our support for a Second Reading.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I am going to make the shortest speech I have ever made in my life. There is absolutely nothing to be said against this Bill, and everything to be said for it.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I cannot emulate the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in the shortness of his speech, but I do not want to stand far behind him in my support of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Popplewell said that it was a small Bill. I think all of us here are old enough in experience to realise that you do not judge the value of anything merely by its size. I think this is an extremely valuable Bill. It fulfils a most useful purpose in itself, and it will be of great advantage, in particular to the safety, but also to the efficiency, of our Merchant Navy. I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting it in this way.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the Bill has been received, and I sincerely hope that it will have a similar reception in its further stages. In reply to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, so far as I am aware there are very few ships owned by United

341
Kingdom subsidiaries of foreign companies transferred to the U.K. Register, but already, from reports that have been made on their standards of safety and manning by the unions concerned, it is clear that they are bringing United Kingdom shipping into disrepute. I am sure that the whole House wants to avoid this.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LOAD LINES) BILL
4.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sorry to have to inflict myself once again on those few remaining of your Lordships who are hardy enough to persevere at this "late hour". I wish now to move that the Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) Bill be read a second time. The object of this Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to accept the International Convention on Load Lines which was signed on April 5, 1966, at the close of an International Conference attended by representatives from 52 countries, while a further 8 countries sent observers. The new Convention will come into force internationally one year from the date when 15 countries have accepted it, including among them at least seven countries with one million or more tons of shipping. So far, ten countries have accepted it, including four—the Soviet Union, Panama, U.S.A. and France—with over one million tons of shipping. Five more acceptances are necessary, therefore, in order for this date to be fixed. If the present Bill is passed the United Kingdom will be able to accept the Convention. This will not only bring forward the date when it comes into force, but also put us into a far better position then to persuade other Governments to ratify.
During the preparation for the Conference, and at the Conference itself, we
342
were greatly helped in preparing and in presenting the United Kingdom contribution by all sides of industry, including the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping, the Shipbuilding Conference, Lloyd's Register of Shipping and the seafarers' organisations. I should like to pay tribute to their co-operation, which contributed significantly to the effectiveness of our arguments and, I am sure, enabled the United Kingdom to play a major part in the Conference discussions. As a result the new Convention is a substantial step forward from the existing Convention of 1930.
Since 1930 there have been many changes in shipbuilding techniques and in other matters which affect load lines, so naturally the 1930 Convention, valuable though it is, is slightly in need of revision. First, there is now the steel hatch cover. Not only is this in itself a vast improvement over the sectional wood hatch cover, but it has the additional advantage—and a very significant one—that it is unlikely to require attention in bad weather. This obviously reduces the occasions when the crew are likely to have to go on deck when the weather is bad. Secondly, there have been changes in shipbuilding techniques which have very significantly improved the strength of hulls. Provided that a ship's hull has adequate strength, and provided that she is provided with steel hatch covers, under the 1966 Convention there is a reduction in freeboard of as much as 10 per cent. for ships of over 500 feet in length.
The 1930 Convention allowed tankers, because of their special form of construction, to be loaded more deeply than other ships, and there is universal agreement that this decision was a right one. The 1966 Convention considered that the larger tankers could be still more deeply loaded. As with other ships, there will be no deeper loading for tankers of less than about 330 feet in length, but for tankers of about 500 feet there is a reduction in freeboard of approximately 10 per cent., rising to a reduction of approximately 15 per cent. for tankers of about 1,000 feet in length. Of course, in 1930 tankers of that size were not heard of. I may mention that the 1930 Convention laid down basic freeboards for tankers of up to only 600 feet in length and for other ships of up to only 750 feet, whereas the 1966 Convention lays

343
down basic freeboards for all ships of up to 1,200 feet in length.
I should like now to turn to an equally important matter, and that is protection of the crew. Throughout these discussions both the Board of Trade and the seafarers' organisations have had very much in mind the effect of these reduced freeboards on the amount of water which can be washed on the deck, and in particular the need for protection for the crew. For this reason no ship with sectional wood covers will be allowed to load more deeply than at present. But where steel covers are used, the number of occasions when the crew will be required to go on deck in bad weather will, as I have said, be much reduced. Secondly, the new Convention lays down for the first time a minimum height of bow so that there will be sufficient freeboard to prevent shipping too much water. Thirdly, the Convention lays down for the first time a minimum height of guard rail—in fact, 1 metre, or over 39 inches. Fourthly, the crew must be protected in getting to and from their quarters and the ship's working spaces. Moreover, special additional precautions are called for on tankers. Now moving on to zones of the sea, the 1930 Convention divided the oceans and seas of the world into seasonal zones in accordance with the weather likely to be met there. These zones have now been revised in the 1966 Convention in the light of our far better meteorological knowledge.
I now turn to the provisions of the Bill itself. Clause 1 applies the provisions of the Bill to all ships other than warships, ships solely engaged in fishing and pleasure yachts. Load line requirements never have applied to these ships, and they are specifically excluded from the application of the Convention. Annexed to the Convention itself are fifty-two detailed Regulations, and these technical requirements will be given effect to in load line rules which the Board of Trade may make under Clause 2. These rules will be drawn up in full consultation with all concerned, including, of course, the Chamber of Shipping, the Shipbuilding Conference, Lloyd's Register of Shipping and the seafarers' organisations. Under Clause 30(3) these rules will be exercisable by statutory instrument and subject to annulment in pursuance of a
344
Resolution of either House of parliament.
Clauses 3 to 11 contain what are in effect the enforcement provisions of the Bill applicable to ships registered in the United Kingdom. They will ensure that ships are surveyed, marked and comply with the technical requirements of the rules, hold the required certificates and are not overloaded. Clause 9 will ensure that they produce the right certificates before they leave port. Clauses 12 to 17 apply with the necessary modifications these earlier provisions to ships other than those registered in the United Kingdom when they are in the United Kingdom ports. But, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, the full requirements will not apply to them if they can produce a valid Convention certificate.
There are certain powers of exemption in the Bill. These give the Board of Trade certain limited powers of exemption. The classes of exemption fall into two categories. First there are the circumstances where the Convention itself calls for exemption. These are set out in Clause 18(1) (which is a repetition of an existing power under Section 40 of the 1932 Act), and in Clause 19(2) and 19(4) which are new. I think there will be general agreement that the Board of Trade should take these powers, since they will be available to other countries and will undoubtedly be used. The second category covers an exempting power applicable to ships not covered by the application of the Convention.
These powers of exemption are both modest and useful. Powers of exemption from load line requirements all together under Clause 18 will be by Order which will need to be laid before the House and will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament. Under Clause 19 the exemption will be in respect of named ships, and is much more likely to be used as an exemption from an individual requirement than from load line requirements as a whole. In any case, exemptions will not be given unless the ship has been surveyed by a surveyor, and an exemption certificate will be needed which will lay down adequate conditions of safety.
Now let me turn to the question of fines. All the maximum fines in the Bill,

345
compared with those in the 1932 and 1937 Acts, have been at least doubled, and the maximum fine for submersion of the load line mark has been increased four times. The maximum penalty under the 1932 Act is £100, plus an additional fine of up to £100 for every inch of submersion. Clause 4(2) and 4(3) propose to increase these fines to four times their present level. There is an additional offence under Clause 4(4) which is a repetition of the offence under the Merchant Shipping Act 1937. Here the offence is taking a ship to sea overloaded, or being party to doing so. The punishment has been changed from imprisonment to a fine, in order to bring the penalty more into line with other penalties in recent Merchant Shipping Acts. It is, in effect, the same fine as that proposed under Clause 25 of the Bill for carrying a number of passengers in excess of the number permitted by the passenger certificate. The maximum fines for overloading a ship and for overcrowding a ship have therefore been substantially increased and made the same. Clause 24 empowers the Board of Trade to make regulations governing the carriage of deck cargo. It doubles the penalty, and, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, it will apply not only to timber deck cargo but to any deck cargo.
There is one matter in the Bill which is not directly concerned with load lines but is a matter of some public concern. Last summer there were three disasters to small boats covered by the requirements governing passenger certificates under the Merchant Shipping Acts. The "Quesada" sank of Campbeltown in May with the loss of eight lives. In July the "Prince of Wales" sank off North Wales with the loss of fifteen lives. Finally, the "Darlwyne" sank off the Cornish coast with the loss of all thirty-one on board. In all, fifty-four lives were lost. The "Quesada" and the "Darlwyne" should each have had a passenger certificate, but did not. The "Prince of Wales" had a passenger certificate, but was exceeding her permitted numbers.
The present maximum fines were laid down in 1894 (for exceeding passenger numbers) and in 1906 (for not having a passenger certificate when a ship carries more than twelve passengers). Clause 25
346
and Schedule 1 increase the fines to £400 if the case is taken summarily, and to a fine without limit on conviction on indictment. I believe that if your Lordships agree to these increases it will be a powerful endorsement of the view that these offences are serious, and (which is even more important) will act as a powerful deterrent to the future. It will be seen from Clause 34(3) that the load line provisions of the Bill will come into force on an appointed day. This will coincide with the date when the 1966 Convention comes into force. But the increase in passenger certificate fines in Clause 25 and in Schedule 1 will come into force on the passing of the Bill.
Again I apologise for having detained your Lordships for so long, but I believe this is an important Bill which has a great deal of "meat" in it, and it is something to which we should give a good deal of thought. Much thought has been given to it already, as is apparent from the form the Bill now takes. I am convinced that it is in the interests of all those who go to sea. I believe it is also in the interests of this country as the leading maritime nation of the world, and I very much hope that your Lordships will approve it. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Walston.)
4.55 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for the extremely interesting description he has given of this Bill. From this side of the House we certainly welcome it and give it our full support. The noble Lord has made its considerable range of provisions admirably clear, and therefore my comments can be brief.
As the noble Lord has told us, this Bill implements the new Convention in which Great Britain took a leading part last year, and we are glad to hear that our country continues to take a leading role in maritime affairs. Although we are no longer the leader in maritime tonnage, we are among the leaders, and I believe we in this country still carry a prestige which is second to none. In this context I particularly welcome the noble Lord's statement that when we have put this Bill on the Statute Book our country

347
will be in a position to exert its influence to encourage others who have not yet ratified the Convention to do so, in order that the Convention may become a reality as soon as possible. Clearly, it is in the interests of everyone that this should be so.
I do not think the noble Lord said so, but I imagine that the effect of establishing the new standards for load lines will be to allow the modern ship to carry more, because, as the noble Lord has said, it will be allowed to lower the load line by as much as 10 or 15 per cent. in the case of the larger tankers. I imagine the effect will be that probably some of the smaller, older ships, with wooden hatch covers and old hulls, will probably find themselves carrying less than they are to-day because of the effect of the new regulations. In any event, I have no objection to this change. It seems quite right that where shipping lines have gone to the expense and shown the enterprise of building new merchant ships they should get all the advantages which can safely go with them. The noble Lord gave us an indication of the benefit that will accrue to the large, modern tanker and how the Bill caters for these huge modern vessels. He told us that the limit for the standards will be ships of 1,200 feet in length. I should like to ask whether that will cover the new tankers that are being built to-day, of 200,000 tons. Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten us on this when he answers. Then I understand that there is a modern technique of transporting oil in huge plastic bladders which are towed through the water behind the ship. Will this Bill lay down any safeguards for those?
A further point which occurred to me when considering this Bill has also, I am sure, occurred to other noble Lords, following the unhappy disaster with the "Torrey Canyon". We are already conscious of the dangers that flow from breaching the load line regulations and from a vessel sailing too low in the water. But following the "Torrey Canyon" incident we must also be conscious of the dangers that flow from the moving of these big vessels through channels which are not deep enough for their very deep draught. Now that these giant ships are becoming the most economic form of transport for oil, the danger
348
seems to be less of sinking through overloading and far more of sinking through going aground, just as the "Torrey Canyon" did. The noble Lord told us that the seasonal concessions have been revised by the Convention. This seems to be a wise move, and they will be provided for in the regulations, but I wonder whether thought has been given to whether standards or criteria should be laid down regarding the channels which should be used by these enormous new, modern vessels with their very deep draught? It will be interesting to hear the noble Lord's views on this point.
I welcome the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, of the provision made to provide for the safety of the crews who operate the modern giant tankers which travel much lower in the water than ships have done in the past, and I was particularly glad to hear that there will be specific provision for guard rails as well as for higher bows to deflect the water. This is obviously of great importance in the interests of safety. The noble Lord just touched upon the provision for deck cargoes. The carrying of deck cargoes has greatly increased to-day and I imagine may much further increase with the use of containers on ships. I should welcome an assurance from the noble Lord that the regulations will be completely adequate to meet this type of freight.
I notice that the Bill is drafted in a way which avoids the voluminous detail of the 1932 Act and relies on the making of a series of regulations by the Minister. As the noble Lord knows, this is a form of legislation to which Her Majesty's Opposition normally object, but in this case I fully recognise the good sense of proceeding by regulation, particularly when you are dealing with such a mass of detailed technical complexity, and all the more so as I understand that all shipping interests will be fully consulted as regulations are made. Perhaps the noble Lord would repeat the assurance which was given in another place when he replies to the debate. I was delighted to hear that every aspect of the shipping industry gives full support to the Bill. I am sure that that is right and is in everybody's interests.
Turning lastly to Clause 25, which is an appendage added for a special purpose, to improve the safety arrangements for these coastal pleasure vessels, I welcome this

349
clause, and I am sure that the Government are right to provide for this very steep increase in penalties for contravention of the regulations by pleasure boats. The three disasters to which the noble Lord referred, resulting in a total loss of life of 54, shook the whole nation, and I am sure the Government are right to act quickly and in time for the next summer season. I give this my very full support, and hope that it will deter hirers of craft from such wretched conduct in the future. I am sure most of the owners of these pleasure vessels are careful and responsible men, but it is right that penalties should be increased.
I wonder if the noble Lord could tell us whether it has been possible to have any consultation with the representatives of these pleasure vessels, and whether, indeed, there is any national organisation that speaks for them. If there is not, clearly it would be in their interests, and that of the whole community, if the Government used their influence to encourage the formation of such an organisation so that all those who run these pleasure vessels could be made fully aware of just what the safety regulations are. With those few observations, I have much pleasure in giving my support to the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question before he replies? If I understood him correctly, he gave us to understand that certain nations had not yet seen fit to comply with the terms of this Convention. Can he tell us whether any leading maritime nations are included in that list, and, if they are, what steps are being taken to encourage them to comply?
5.4 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. It is not so much a question of nations which have not complied as a question of nations which have hitherto not ratified. They have to take positive action, which, partly, in certain cases, through slothfulness, in other cases through pressure of business, or for reasons of administrative organisation, inevitably takes some time. After all, it is only twelve months since the Convention was signed, and in our own case—as one of the leading maritime countries in the world—it has taken
350
twelve months to fit it into our legislative programme. Those nations which have not yet ratified the Convention are not necessarily being in any way obstructive.
I do not think I can give the noble Lord the actual countries who have signed it already, other than the four I have mentioned, who are the big shipping countries; that is, those with over one million tons of shipping: the Soviet Union, Panama, the United States and France. There are, of course, other large shipping countries—Germany, Holland, Italy, Liberia, Japan—and I believe that several of them will very shortly be following our example and ratifying. But as I have said, once we have ourselves introduced our own legislation enabling us to ratify we shall be in a far stronger position to encourage them to speed up their ratification.
To come to the various interesting points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, the 1,200 ft. limit, which is as far as the Convention goes at the present time, certainly covers all tankers at present under construction. Undoubtedly, in the years to come, as things get larger, there will be a need to increase the total length; but these Conventions have to be re-negotiated and rediscussed in the light of length, size, constructional matters, and so on. So I do not think it in any way weakens the adequacy or effectiveness of the Convention that this limit has been put on.
Plastic bladders are not included. I should not like to go on record as saying they are not, in the strict sense of the word, ships, though they are not in fact ships, as they have no motive power of their own and no crew on board. The object of this Convention is primarily to increase safety at sea, meaning the safety of human beings at sea. The fact that there are no people on board these plastic bladders, even should they become widely used, which at the moment seems somewhat remote, means that there would be no question of increased hazard to crew or sailors.
The observations of the noble Lord on the "Torrey Canyon" are extremely valuable and, I am sure, very sound; but I would respectfully suggest that it is not primarily a question dealing with load lines, with which this Bill concerns itself. The matters he has raised are

351
being considered, both domestically in this country and in conversations with other seagoing Powers. I am sure he is quite right: we must give increasing thought to the actual channels of navigation and various other methods of control, particularly when they are close to territorial waters, if not specifically within them.
I can assure the noble Lord, that so far as deck cargoes are concerned, the regulations are adequate to cover the new development in containers, and any other future types of deck cargo that we can envisage in the relatively near future. I can also assure him that before any regulations are made by the Minister, all shipping interests will undoubtedly be consulted.
The noble Lord made a very interesting suggestion about pleasure vessels. So far
352
as I know, there is no organisation representing the owners of pleasure vessels. They are a very varied—I was going to say crew, but I am not sure that is the right word—group of people. Some of them, of course, are simply fishermen who at certain times make their living by fishing and at other times earn an honest penny by taking trippers out to sea. It would not be easy to embrace them all in any particular organisation. However, I will certainly bear in mind what he has said, and will consult those more closely concerned with it than I am. I thank both noble Lords for what they have said and for the support given to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at nine minutes past five o'clock.