Lords Sitting of 2 February 1967

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

RHODESIA AND THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION
3.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 their action in instructing the World Health Organisation to have no further dealings with the Rhodesian Government is in keeping with humanitarian principles.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, the World Health Organisation, of which Rhodesia is an associate member, was informed, in company with other specialised agencies, after the illegal declaration of independence that it should have no communication with the illegal régime in Salisbury and that Her Majesty's Government had withdrawn the authority of representatives nominated by the illegal regime. It was not, however, the intention to deny humanitarian services through the World Health Organisation. The Organisation was, therefore, also informed, in qualification of the foregoing, that it could continue where necessary to correspond on strictly technical or routine matters with Rhodesian officials lawfully appointed before the illegal declaration and acting in the ordinary course of their duties. We thus gave full weight to the humanitarian considerations involved.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware, for instance, that notification of suspect drugs has
1046
apparently ceased to reach Rhodesia, and that the project for the eradication of malaria in Rhodesia, the agreement in respect of which was signed at the end of 1964, appears to have been delayed? Might I also ask the noble Lord, in spite of his Answer, whether he does not think that any direction from this Government to the World Health Organisation to stop dealings, or in any way to interfere, from the point of view of health, with Rhodesia, really amounts to medical sanctions, and is not in keeping with the dignity of Great Britain?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. I think it would be as well, however, to get the facts right. A good deal was made of quite inaccurate Press reports that, by our action, a warning about the danger of two drugs was prevented from reaching Salisbury. That report was quite inaccurate. No warning was given to any Government, illegal or otherwise, in Salisbury or elsewhere, and therefore the first part of the noble Viscount's supplementary question does not arise at all. So far as the work for the eradication of malaria is concerned, we should be very happy to see this go ahead.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Could my noble friend tell me in detail what activities, designed for the promotion of health by the World Health Organisation, ceased on the reception of these instructions?
LORD BESWICK: Yes. If my noble friend puts a Question down, I shall be glad to give her a list of them—if there are any.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the Government what earthly connection the world's health and the advancement of medical science has with the date of a man's appointment to an office in Rhodesia? I cannot understand.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if there is an illegal régime in Salisbury, the United Nations and its specialised agencies cannot have dealings with that régime. However, if there are officials working on such matters as health in Salisbury, we have absolutely no reason to intercept or interfere with any correspondence on such technical matters as between the specialised agencies and those individual officials in Salisbury.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, perhaps I did not make myself clear to the noble Lord. In time of war, our hospitals look after our wounded enemies just as much and just as well as they look after our own wounded. Surely the same principle applies here. When matters of human health are involved, it does not in the least matter how a régime has come into being.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's feelings on the general issue here, but I really cannot see what he is concerned about in this particular case. So far as the date is concerned, certain officials appointed by the legal régime remain appointed and are, in our view, officials with whom it is proper to have dealings; but there may well be cases of other individuals appointed by the illegal régime with whom it would not be proper to deal.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, could the Minister say whether, if there was an epidemic of disease in Rhodesia, they would have to deal with it without the help and advice of the World Health Organisation, or would the World Health Organisation then go in? Otherwise, the epidemic might spread to the whole of Africa.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree absolutely with what the noble Baroness has said. Nothing that I have said runs contrary to the sentiment which she has expressed. We have absolutely no wish to prevent the humanitarian work of the W.H.O. from operating is Salisbury. That, I should have thought, had been made clear. The agitation about a contrary sentiment has been founded on inaccurate Press reports.
LORD CARRINGTON: What puzzles me, my Lords, is what the noble Lord said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Summer skill. Surely the point is: What in fact are the practical consequences of this action?
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry that I did not give a more informative answer to my noble friend. I should have liked to do so, but one cannot prove a negative. So far as I am concerned, nothing has been stopped, but I should not like to assert that until I have had an opportunity of looking into the matter.

ANGLO-FRENCH CO-OPERATION ON MILITARY PROJECTS
3.13 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present position regarding Anglo-French co-operation on military projects outside the collaborative ventures of our aero-space industries; and what prospects exist for co-operation in the sphere of naval equipment.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, in addition to the major joint aeronautical projects there is a wide and continuous exchange of views with the French on research and development matters of common interest. At the moment, however, there are few specific projects in the naval or Army spheres which appear to be ripe for joint development.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord expand the latter part of his reply? Can he say along what lines this desirable co-operation is proposed to be extended? Is it in electronics or armaments and so forth? Further, is the noble Lord aware that last Saturday the French Minister of Defence, M. Messmer, announced over the French radio, in reply to a question, that he expected agreement shortly on a collaborative venture in the sphere of naval equipment?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, first of all I should say that there is a continuous and very close link between the Navy and the Army of France and Great Britain; it is a continuous, close and frank exchange. I do not know to what item M. Messmer was specifically referring. It is certainly true that we have tried to reach agreement with the French on certain equipment; but our interests have not matched. However, we are in close touch upon a number of projects both in electronic fields and in the torpedo field, although final specifications have not been arrived at. I would mention another example of very close co-operation—helicopters; and two

1049
of them, the SA.340 and the WG.13, are primarily Army helicopters.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as a keen supporter of Anglo-French cooperation on military projects and on wider Western European collaboration on military projects, could I ask the noble Lord whether the Anglo-French technical naval committees on equipment are still in existence and active? Also, am I right in inferring from his reply to my noble friend's supplementary question that there is a prospect of Anglo-French co-operation in the development of a successor to the naval Wasp helicopter?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I cannot give a specific answer on the naval committees; but there is a meeting of the Steering Committee which coordinates activities in this whole field to be held in the course of the next few days. The Navy and Army procedures are going on as energetically as before. As to the noble Earl's particular point about naval helicopters, I would say that the principal naval helicopter of the future is the SH3D, an American design peculiarly well suited for naval operations. But the SA.340, which is going to be the replacement for the Scout helicopter, would, I imagine, be suitable for a possible Wasp replacement. I should not like to be specific on this matter because I do not myself know whether that particular requirement is in existence.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I can understand his not wishing to be stung by being drawn too far over the Wasp.

MORECAMBE BAY AND SOLWAY BARRAGE PROPOSALS
3.17 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: 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 why it is proposed to give priority for a full feasibility study of a barrage for Morecambe Bay, in preference to the Solway, in view of the need for additional water supplies for the North-East as well as for the North-West and
1050
the fact that a Solway barrage is far easier, quicker and cheaper to construct.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Answer to the noble Lord's Question is that the Water Resources Board advised us that using Morecambe Bay was likely to be cheaper, chiefly because it is closer than Solway to the places where the water will mainly be needed.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, arising out of that reply, for which I thank the noble Lord, since the Water Resources Board's report refers only to the conservation and transport of water, I should like to ask to what extent the Government have considered such things as communications, power generation, fisheries, amenities and other relevant matters in determining priorities for a full feasibility study. Taking these various things into account, and in view of the time factor, would not the noble Lord agree that it is desirable to carry out a feasibility study of the Solway scheme as well? It is possible that the Morecambe Bay feasibility study might not come up to expectations, and, in case that should be so, it might be very desirable to have available a feasibility study of the Solway, in order that not only water but all the other matters can be taken into full account.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I hesitate to call these other matters subsidiary but they were taken into account in desk studies carried out on both Morecambe Bay and Solway. Since a feasibility study is such an extremely expensive thing, and takes several years to carry out, the Government felt it would be more reasonable to do the one which looked better on the basis of the desk studies.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that, because of this very time factor of several years, it would be highly desirable to have a feasibility study of the Solway barrage, as well, so that a true comparison could be obtained, not only of water resources but of all the other matters to which I have referred. A proper judgment can then be made, in

1051
the light of this full and complete feasibility study of this very important and, if carried out, very costly undertaking.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should be the first to agree that it would be desirable to do both feasibility studies, but the Government were not convinced that the benefits to be reaped by the national community as a whole would have been commensurate with the vast outlay required to carry out the two studies.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, in the recent Report of the Water Resources Board it was stated that, as a measure of economy, the Government had not authorised any practical investigation of the feasibility. It may be that I overlooked, or that I have not seen, some statement in the Press. Are we to understand that the Government have authorised fairly considerable expenditure in examining the possibility of the Morecambe Bay barrage?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Government have authorised a full feasibility study of the Morecambe Bay barrage.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, tell the House the main points of difference in the desk study of the relevant merits of the Morecambe Bay barrage scheme and the Solway Firth barrage scheme? If it is not convenient to give an answer to-day, would he put the information in the Library?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, these main points of difference have been published, and I will ensure that they are made available in the Library.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, do I understand from my noble friend's reply that the feasibility study in connection with the Solway Firth will not be undertaken until the Morecambe Bay study is completed?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it will not be undertaken at the moment.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I must point out that that was no answer to my question.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, whether the Government have taken full
1052
account of the comments of the Water Resources Board, at the bottom of page 4 of the Report of these desk studies; to wit, that if the Morecambe Bay barrage scheme comes up to expectations, it will make it possible to switch Lake District resources now used in Lancashire to meet the growing demands of the Cumberland and Northumberland river authority areas? Will the noble Lord please look into the comments to which I have referred and which could be very dangerous, and see that nothing is done which transgresses what has come to be known as the Cross man assurances on which many people in the North-West of England have pinned their faith?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Government have taken into account the observations of the Water Resources Board read out by the noble Lord.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any information of the cost of this feasibility study?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the probable cost has been published, but I regret that I do not have a note of it with me. I must therefore refer the noble Lord to the publication which has already been made and which I have undertaken will be put in the Library.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Is it about a million-and-a-half pounds?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may we take it that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider the question of a feasibility study for the Wash, because if the system of recharging the aquifers in the South-East of England is not a success, the Wash water will be urgently required in twenty years' time?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, that is a separate question.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, give an undertaking that the feasibility study of the Solway will at least be undertaken in time to fit in with the development plan now under contemplation for South-West Scotland?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I regret that I cannot give any undertaking about the timing of a possible feasibility study of the Solway Firth barrage.

ST. VINCENT
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Beswick will be making a Statement on St. Vincent.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES BILL [H.L.]
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Refreshment Houses Acts 1860 and 1964; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CENSORSHIP OF THE THEATRE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I beg to move, and do so with much pleasure, that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, be proposed to the House as a member of the Joint Committee in place of the late Lord Kilmuir.
Moved, That the Lord Brooke of Cumnor be proposed to the House as a member of the Joint Committee in place of the late Earl of Kilmuir.—(The Earl of Long ford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUGAR BEET (RESEARCH AND EDUCATION) (INCREASE OF CONTRIBUTIONS) ORDER 1967
3.26 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON) moved, That the Draft Sugar Beet (Research and Education) (Increase of Contributions) Order 1967, laid before the House on January 17, 1967, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Order is to provide for the increased income which is now needed to finance the programme of research and education which the sugar beet industry (that is, the growers of beet and the British
1054
Sugar Corporation) wants to see carried out. Under Section 18(1) of the Sugar Act 1956, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland make an Order each year approving a programme of expenditure on research and education for home-grown sugar beet. They are required by the Act to consult the industry, and the established practice is to do this through the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee on which are represented the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales and of Scotland and the Corporation, and also agricultural scientists.
The income for the programme comes under the authority of Section 18(3) of the 1956 Act by contributions from the industry; in other words, from the growers and from the Corporation. These are paid into a Sugar Beet Research and Education Fund under the charge of the Minister. This system of contributions has been in force for thirty years—ever since the regulation of the sugar industry brought in by the Sugar Industry (Re-organisation) Act 1936. I think all those connected in any way with the sugar beet industry will agree when I say that it has worked well. The 1956 Act specified that the maximum contribution should be 3d. per ton each from the growers and the Corporation for each ton of home-grown beet delivered to the Corporation's factories. Over the years research and education in sugar beet have expanded greatly and when I have dealt with a few details of this Order I should like to refer to some of the benefits which have come as a result of this research and education.
The position has now been reached when the proceeds of the 3d. levy are insufficient to finance an appropriate programme in the interests of the industry as a whole. The estimated cost of the programme in 1967–68 is £165,000, and on an average crop the income with a 3d. levy would be £142,000. It is clear therefore that expectations are that the present levy is insufficient to finance an appropriate research programme. The industry does not wish to see any curtailment in the research programme already largely planned, and it is agreed that the authority of Parliament should be sought to an increase in the maximum contribution. Such an increase requires an

1055
Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament.
The specific proposal embodied in the Order now before your Lordships is that the maximum of the contribution should be raised to 4d. per ton from both the grower and the Corporation, for a period of three years. The Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee has been looking ahead to various forms of worthwhile research in the next few years. They do not contemplate any major developments, and have been concerned in present circumstances to keep a close scrutiny on all proposals for expenditure. My right honourable friends are satisfied both that the programme which the Committee have in view is reasonable, and that to meet the cost it is not necessary to increase the maximum by more than 1d. per ton. They do not feel that it would be wise to look further ahead than three years at the present moment.
If I may, my Lords, I will say a few words about the research which is supported by the sugar beet contributions. Those who pay them naturally want to see value for their money, and both in my present capacity and as a grower of sugar beet, I am confident that they need it. I do not think that there is any need to remind your Lordships of the contributions which research and technique have made over past years to the general increase of efficiency in agricultural production throughout the country and to the increase in productivity. As a result, agriculture to-day is one of our most progressive industries. One has only to look at the new varieties of cereal, the new methods of pest and weed control, the advances in animal genetics, health and nutrition, the mechanisation and the new seed varieties, to see what has been achieved and to see also the scope that lies before us in the future.
The research into sugar beet, which is an important crop in the country's economy, has followed the same course. I can safely say that the finance of the Sugar Beet Research and Education Fund, has been applied wisely to the support of investigation at leading research institutions and universities, including Rothamsted Plant Breeding Institute, the National Institute of Agricultural Botany and the Norfolk Agricultural Station at Sprowston. This
1056
is not only good in itself; it is also well co-ordinated with all other forms of research, and there is no risk of it going off on a tack of its own regardless of discoveries made in other lines of agricultural research.
I do not think that your Lordships would wish me to go in great detail into the numerous lines of inquiry which have been followed in past years, but I would remind your Lordships that a great deal of research has been put into seed beds, optimum nutrient requirements, new varieties, the control of virus yellows—a most devastating pest to the grower of sugar beet—precision drilling, the use of herbicides, and in many other ways. All these have been coupled with a general improvement in farming standards, and together they have yielded remarkable dividends.
As an example of this progress, in the years 1941 to 1945 the average yield per acre of sugar beet was 9.2 tons. Twenty years later, in the years 1961 to 1965, it had risen to 14 tons per acre—an increase of very nearly 50 per cent. I think your Lordships will agree that this is good and worthwhile progress, and that the sugar beet industry, the scientists and the farmers who help towards this, deserve the congratulations of your Lordships and of this country. I think that we should also pay tribute, and I am happy to do so, to the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Greenwell, for their careful oversight of this programme.
I commend this draft Order to your Lordships as a means of assisting the industry to continue on its successful road, and as a means of assisting the country in its economic progress.
Moved, That the Draft Sugar Beet (Research and Education) (Increase of Contributions) Order 1967, laid before the House on the 17th January, 1967, be approved.—(Lord Walston.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for explaining this Order to your Lordships. If it would not be an impertinence, I should like to welcome the noble Lord back to the field of agriculture, in which he used to play such a prominent part when on this side of the House. Our only sorrow is that the cause of his coming back should be a

1057
re-shuffle which unseated his predecessor, who was so kind and courteous on matters agricultural. But we are glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Walston, back and we know that he is on ground with which he is wholly familiar.
This Order is entirely non-controversial. At first sight, it might appear that the noble Lord is asking for rather a great deal when he says that it would mean an extra 33⅓ per cent. on the levy, but when one looks a little further into it, and with the simple mathematics that I have been able to do, it would seem to indicate that farmers will be paying only 5s. an acre for sugar beet research, which in all conscience is a surprisingly modest sum to ask them to pay.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl to make this clear? As the noble Earl knows, it is 5s. an acre—I accept his mathematics—for every acre of sugar beet grown, and not for every acre of the farm.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I had intended to convey that, and I am sorry if I did not. The noble Lord referred to the fast strides that had been made in sugar beet production. They have made fast strides, and they anticipate continuing to do so in the next few years, with the advent and wider use of monogerm seeds, spraying and mechanical thinning. Indeed, it is hoped to do away with all forms of thinning and they anticipate continuing to do so in the next few years, with the advent and wider use of. This is a remarkably cheap price to pay for this research, and I wish the Order well.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, it is a long time since I had anything to do with sugar beet, but I should like to ask the noble Lord, especially as he says that he grows sugar beet, this question. Does not this levy amount to between 2d. and 3d. a pound of sugar?
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords, it certainly does not. I am afraid that my mental arithmetic is not fast enough for this, but if the price of sugar beet of 16 per cent. content as delivered to the factory is in the neighbourhood of 127s. per ton, the noble Lord can make his own calculation. A levy of 3d. or 4d. per ton is only an insignificant, almost invisible amount on the price of a packet of sugar sold in the shops.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, it depends on the amount of sugar got out of a ton of sugar beet, which is around 6 per cent.
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords; it is 16 per cent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (VARIATION OF RATE OF GRANT) ORDER 1966
3.38 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg to move this Order which appears in my name on the Order Paper. Although the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was kind enough to say that in dealing with agriculture I was on familiar ground, I say frankly and without hesitation that this matter is somewhat less familiar to me. However, I do not think that this is a particularly controversial or difficult Order, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree to it with the same willingness and grace with which you agreed to the previous one.
This Order gives effect to the decision announced by my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade on December 1 to effect a temporary increase in the rates of investment grant. Part I of the Industrial Development Act 1966 enables the Board of Trade to make grants to firms in respect of approved capital investment in certain broad classes of assets. The eligible assets include plant or machinery used in qualifying industrial processes such as manufacturing, mining and quarrying, construction and ship repair, scientific research equipment, computers, hovercraft, ships and mining works. The standard rate of grant laid down in the Act is 20 per cent., but machinery or plant, mining works and some special categories of computers qualify for 40 per cent. grants, if they are for use in development areas.
Section 7 of the Act does, however, provide power to vary the rates of grant by Order. We all recognise the importance to industry of having a firm basis for long-term investment plans. People can plan effectively only if they have security and know within reason what the future holds for them. I want to make

1059
it perfectly clear that it remains our intention that the rates in the Act, 20 per cent. and 40 per cent., should be the long term rates for the investment grants scheme. But I think your Lordships will agree that the provision in the Act for varying the rates gives a very useful flexibility when some extra stimulus to investment is required.
The present Order has been made under that power and it came into effect on December 30 last. Its effect is very simple. It provides that in so far as expenditure on eligible assets is incurred between January 1, 1967, and December 31, 1968, the rate of grant will be increased by an extra 5 per cent. This means that expenditure which—under the standard provisions in the Act—would have qualified for 20 per cent. will qualify for 25 per cent., and that expenditure that is related to use in development areas and under previous Regulations would have qualified for 40 per cent. will now qualify for 45 per cent.
The 25 per cent. rate will apply to all eligible ships and hovercraft, to most computers, and to machinery and plant and mining works for use outside development areas. It will also apply to machinery or plant which is provided for short-term hiring in the construction industry, wherever it may be located, whether inside or outside a development area. The 45 per cent. rate will apply to other machinery or plant, to mining works and to certain computers which are either integrated with other qualifying machinery or used primarily on scientific research, when any of these assets are for use in development areas. There are no changes in the definition of eligible assets; they remain precisely as laid down in the Act.
In order to attract the higher rates of grant, expenditure on eligible assets must be incurred between January 1, 1967, and December 31, 1968. The Act provides that
"expenditure shall be treated as incurred at the time when the sums of which it consists become payable".
This definition, I am told, is very familiar to accountants because it occurs in the Income Tax Acts, and therefore it should present no problems. The Board
1060
of Trade have had discussions with the professional accountancy bodies on this subject and guidance to industry has been issued in the booklet on investment grants published at the end of November.
My Lords, while I should be perfectly willing to explain, if it were wished, just how various kinds of expenditure are treated, this is perhaps going into rather more technical detail than is desirable on this occasion. The broad effect will be that the higher rates of grant will apply in the main to assets delivered or installed during the two-year period. Where an asset is bought under arrangements providing for a series of payments—such as a hire purchase agreement, for example—then the higher rates will apply to those instalments which fall due within the two years in question. The Confederation of British Industry has warmly welcomed the Government's decision to increase grants over the next two years. The National Economic Development Council has also expressed the view that this action represented an important step in promoting the objectives agreed at the National Productivity Conference last September.
My Lords, it is not possible here and now to judge what the precise effect of the Order will be. The Board of Trade have recently announced the results of their latest inquiry into industry's investment intentions. This inquiry was carried out from mid-November onwards and the replies received suggest that firms were then expecting a fall in manufacturing investment of about 10 per cent. in 1967 as compared with 1966. But I want to make two points about that forecast. First, some of the firms had already sent in their replies to the questionnaire before the increase in investment grants was announced and it is probable that many of those who replied after the announcement had been made had not had time to reconsider their investment plans. And secondly, the latest actual figures of investment that we have—which cover the first nine months of 1966—show virtually no downward movement in manufacturing investment.
I know perfectly well that there are many factors that influence a business when it is deciding what its investment programme should be, and that Government action, although of importance, is

1061
by no means the sole factor in helping it to arrive at what it considers to be the right decision. Many of these factors are not under our immediate control in any way. Our object in providing these higher grants is to encourage firms to use the present opportunity to expand and modernise their plant. What in effect is happening is that the Government are prepared to take a larger part of the risk—in development areas a risk which amounts to very nearly half of the total amount. I hope and believe that firms will take advantage of the increased grants for the next two years, and will place their orders now and go ahead now with the plans for development and investment which they may be contemplating. I beg to move that the Order be now approved.
Moved, That the Industrial Development (Variation of Rate of Grant) Order 1966 be approved.—(Lord Walston.)
3.47 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, started by disclaiming the same degree of authority in talking on this matter—in talking about hardware (shall I say?)—as he had on the previous Motion, which dealt with what I might call software. But the noble Lord has certainly discharged his duty to move this Motion in a quite exemplary fashion, and I not only congratulate him on that but welcome him warmly to the functions that he has now assumed.
We have no intention, of course, of opposing this Order, but I think it is only right for me to say that we do not find it very easy to be enthusiastic about giving more money to this investment, whether it is economic or not. But this is a matter that we discussed on the Bill, and we need not pursue it further now. There is no doubt that those eligible for the increased grant will be glad to get it and, as the noble Lord said, the C.B.I. have endorsed it. At the same time, those not eligible will regret still more than they already do the denial to them of investment allowance of which they have been deprived.
The one criticism I would make of what the noble Lord has said is that he certainly has not demonstrated that the extra stimulus is needed. If he were adhering to the view that there was going to be a 10 per cent. decrease in invest-
1062
ment, then that point of view might have been sustained. But apparently there is a different point of view now, and to that extent there is no indication that extra stimulus is needed. I may say that, according to the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he made the original announcement, this will cost £60 million a year for two years, and £120 million is not a small amount of money to be talking about. I, for my part, should have thought it unlikely to influence to any great extent decisions to invest, particularly in development areas where the increase of grant is to be only l2½ percent. It would have been more logical, I suggest, to have made the grant 50 per cent. in development areas instead of 45 per cent., thus keeping the 2 to 1 ratio, as it is to be 25 per cent. in other parts of the country.
It may be that towards the end of the two years' period during which the Order is to remain in force there will be a tendency to acquire new machinery and plant sooner than would otherwise have been done, in order to take advantage of the higher level of grant while it still lasts; but by then, of course, it may be no longer appropriate to give this kind of stimulus. On the other hand, in the case of plant which takes a long time to design, manufacture and produce, it may encourage manufacturers to place orders in the near future.
At this point I think I should say it is significant that one set of producers who are now as much in need of orders as anybody—that is to say, the iron and steel plant manufacturers—are unable at present to get orders because the Government has disrupted the flow of orders by steel nationalisation. In consequence they are in danger of losing engineers and craftsmen whom they will have great difficulty in replacing when the flow of orders is renewed. This is a matter which merits the urgent attention of the Government, and I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the position is affected in any way by this Order. The point is that Schedule 2 of the Industrial Development Act lists those bodies which are not to be entitled to the investment grants, and so far, of course, the National Steel Corporation is not on that list. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us about that. I would

1063
ask him to consider this aspect of the matter. Here is an industry which is seriously in need of investment at the present time, and yet one suspects it is precisely an industry which is not covered by this Order, which is designed to stimulate investment.
The grants, we are told, are unlikely to be paid for 18 months from the time when expenditure is actually incurred, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, confirmed this yesterday in the course of his speech. In fact, the additional 5 per cent. grant in development areas will scarcely cover the interest on the money which investors in plant and machinery will have to stand out of during this 18 months. When the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, announced this increase in grant from December 1, I asked whether the Government would consider paying interest on the gants which they are under a statutory obligation to pay, to cover this period. I suppose I should be duly grateful that, in effect, it is just what they are doing that is the effect of this 5 per cent. increase—but only for two years. One can only hope that by the time the two years have elapsed, the period between the time when the entitlement to grant arises and the time when it is paid will have been greatly diminished.
As to the principle of varying the rate of grant from time to time, as the noble Lord said, there is provision for this in the Act; but the noble Lord will be aware that the committee which advises the Ministry of Technology on methods of counteracting the cyclical nature of demand for machine tools recommended against such variation, on the grounds that manufacturers would be inclined to hold off placing orders in expectation of an increase in grant at the onset of a recession, the very time when it would be desirable to maintain the flow of orders. Of course, it can be argued that the rate of grant can be manipulated so as to counteract the cyclical tendency of orders. The fact is, however, that, taking this into consideration, this expert committee advised against manipulation. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord has said, that on his information there is no downward tendency in investment at the present time, it thus becomes a little more difficult to justify the Order. Perhaps
1064
he will have a word to say about this in reply. My Lords, in short, while no doubt industry will be glad to have additional assistance, it is by no means certain that the country will get value for the £120 million which this Order is estimated to cost over two years.
3.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I just ask him a question? As I understand the pattern of dealing with our present economic situation, when we come to reflate it is to be done through investment, through more Government spending and through exports. What I want to ask the noble Lord is this. It appears to quite a number of us that at the present time we have excess capacity in a large number of very important industries. We can make much more steel than there is a demand for; we can make many more motor cars than there is a demand for; we can make more artificial fibres than there is a demand for. I will not weary the House, but I could go on through some important industries—the chemical industry for instance. If that is so, are the Government really right in relying upon stimulating more investment, when the demand for the products we can produce with our existing capacity does not appear to be there?
Of course, the Government may answer, "We expect a huge volume of exports". I hope we shall get more exports, but I can hardly believe that in the present situation of world trade exports could go up by more than a few per cent. We are then left with Government expenditure. If that is the way they intend to reflate, by spending more money through the taxes, in my humble opinion it will be counterproductive; they will burden industry more and the results in the end will be negatived. I should like to know, in connection with this Order, what the reflation policy is.
3.58 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I will first answer very briefly the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. It seems there is at least one difference between him and me, and that is that I have more trust in the good sense of private enterprise and the business skill of the managers of our industries than he has.

1065
I do not for a moment believe that any worthwhile management of a firm will go in for a policy of reinvestment when they already have plant which is not being used, simply because they get a 20 per cent., or a 25 per cent. or a 45 per cent. grant from the Government. I think good business sense will prevail. I believe there are certain firms—not those he has mentioned, but many others—who could very well expand, for the benefit of our export industry in particular, but who are held up because of financial difficulties. There is a degree of uncertainty: "Shall we do it or shall we not do it?". This extra impetus will make them feel that it is a good business proposition to make a further investment. It is that type of business we are hoping to get at.
Coming now to the points of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may I thank him first for his opening remarks and now try to answer some of his questions? So far as the iron and steel plant industry is concerned, I know as well as he does that there is now an excess of capacity and that they are looking hard for work. I hope that they will increasingly direct their attention—I know they have done so in the past, and I give them full credit for it—to overseas markets, and make even greater effort than they are making at the present time, which is considerable, to gain export orders. I personally have just returned from a tour of Latin America, and I know there is great possibility there. I hope some of the firms who are competing out there will in fact get the orders. That is the sort of thing we want. So far as our iron and steel industry is concerned, there is no change alt the moment from the position as it was when my noble friend answered the noble Lord's question. The matter is continuously under consideration, and no doubt a decision will be taken in the reasonably near future.
The noble Lord mentioned the 18-month period of delay in payment. That is the initial period that is being taken, but there are hopes, confident hopes, that that period will be shortened and that in due course there will be no more than a six-month delay in making payments. When that will come about will depend on
1066
a variety of factors, but I should not like the noble Lord or others to gain the impression that there will continuously be an 18-month delay all the way through.
I must confess that I was somewhat puzzled by the thinking behind the noble Lord's general remarks. He queried whether this extra stimulus is in fact needed—is it worth doing at all?—and he mentioned the Technical Committee which has suggested that no variation in rates is needed. Whether that means that the present rates are sufficient incentive or that no incentive of any kind is needed, I am not certain; but all this seems very much at variance with what a good many noble Lords, particularly on the other side of the House, said yesterday in our most interesting debate about the need for incentives to higher management. After all, will higher management work harder in its own job and play less golf or take shorter holidays because there is a 5 percent. reduction in surtax, but not invest the company's money because there is a 5 per cent. increase in grant for it? I do not think noble Lords can have it both ways. Either these marginal movements up and down are an incentive or they are completely irrelevant and we need not bother about them at all.
In this particular case, so far as investment is concerned, I think it is far more effective than the matters we were discussing yesterday. I personally am of the opinion, as are the Government, that initiative of this kind is a sufficient corrective to what may be a levelling off or a decline in our investment. We are not certain. Statistics are unreliable; forecasts cannot be regarded as the writ of the Gospel. But they give indications, and the indications are that our national investments, so far from rising, which is what we want, is levelling off or declining. That position we want to correct by a slight touch on the accelerator, and we consider this 5 per cent. increase is sufficient to do it. I would thank the noble Lord—in spite of his criticisms, which I know he feels bound to make—for his general support for this Order, and for what I take to be his general agreement to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
4.3 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Report of Amendments to be received.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should just like to say that, as a dweller in a London suburb, I cannot help regretting that Her Majesty's Government did not take this opportunity of introducing an annual election of one-third of borough councillors in councils where that system had prevailed before, because I feel that it tends towards continuity of administration and gives a slight bias in favour of wisdom and experience. I remember how eloquently, when they were in Opposition, they argued in favour of that course. I should not like to let this Bill pass altogether without just expressing that opinion.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is one thing about the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and that is that he is very consistent. I well remember his making this case, I think on the Report stage of what is now the London Government Act 1963. I do not think it is quite right to say that we on this side of the House, who were then sitting on the other side of the House, went all the way with the noble Lord. It certainly was a point in the case he made, but in the present circumstances in which this Bill has been introduced we could not make this major change.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [H.L.]
4.5 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 3 [Use of force in making arrest, etc.]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER) moved to leave out "reasonable force" and insert "such force as is reasonable in the circumstances". The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment stand-
1068
ing in my name on the Order Paper. This Amendment arises as a result of a suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on the Committee stage of the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, had moved to leave out "reasonable force" and insert "such force as is reasonably necessary". After a discussion, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said:
"I understand the problem that arises by having a dual criteria—first of all, the reasonableness and, secondly, the necessity. I also understand the problem that has been raised by my noble friend Lord Brentford, that this clause as it now stands can be read in such a way that the reasonableness of the force is not related to the circumstances of the case but is merely an objective judgment of the amount of force in any circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24/11/66, col. 425.]
He then suggested:
"A person may use such force as is in the circumstances reasonable in the prevention of crime."
After further discussion, my noble friend Lord Stonham said:
"I have written that down, and I was just reading it through again:
'A person may use such force as is in the circumstances reasonable …'.". (col. 426.)
He then said that the Government would consider this question before the Report stage. My Lords, they have done so. As my noble friend has said, the Government doubt whether the criticisms are valid, and think the clause as it stands means that a person may use such force as is in the circumstances reasonable. Nevertheless, they think it would be right to make this clear, and this the Amendment does. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("reasonable force") and insert ("such force as is reasonable in the circumstances").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, may I first say, in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for explaining this Amendment, how sorry I am that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is still not able to be here to do so himself; but in the sad circumstances we very naturally accept the noble and learned Lord as a very adequate substitute. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord gave credit to my noble friend Lord Brentford for the origination of this Amendment, because it was he who made this point first, at

1069
Second Reading. Later, at Committee stage, he put down an Amendment upon it which, after discussion involving a number of noble Lords, finally produced the formula now in the Amendment. From what I heard the noble and learned Lord say, the clause will now set out exactly what the Government intend it to mean. I am very glad that this is so and that all doubt is now set aside, and certainly, for my part, I should be very glad to see this Amendment made to the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which arises from a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cones ford, in Committee (in col. 428), when he moved an Amendment to add the words "or in preventing their escape" at the end of Clause 3. He withdrew this Amendment on an assurance by my noble friend Lord Stonham that the Government would look again at the wording of the clause to ensure that it is wide enough to cover all the circumstances in which the use of reasonable force might be justified. The noble Lord, Lord Cones ford, gave certain other examples, and the Government are satisfied that in this Amendment the noble Lord's point has been met. I hope that he also will be of that opinion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, at end insert ("or of persons unlawfully at large.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for this Amendment, which entirely meets my point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment meets a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in Committee (col. 430). It makes clear that Clause 3 supersedes the Common Law relating to the use of force in preventing crime or effecting an arrest. It is the Government's view that Clause 3 has that effect without the Amendment, but the Amendment removes any possible doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, at end insert—
(" (2) Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when
1070
force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, again I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for meeting this point and putting the matter beyond any doubt.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Abolition of certain offences, and consequential repeals]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1)(a), after "of" to insert "maintenance (including champerty, but not embracery),". The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and all the subsequent ones, arise out of a Report of the Law Commission which, in short, recommends the abolition of maintenance and champerty as crimes and as torts, subject to the effect which champerty may have in the law of contract. Your Lordships may remember that the Report was published two days before the Committee stage of this Bill, and at the Committee stage (col. 455) the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, indicated that the Opposition would be "quite content" if the Government found themselves able to implement the Law Commission's proposals in the present Bill. The Government have reached the conclusion that adoption of the proposals would bring about a useful tidying up of the law, and that this can appropriately and speedily be accomplished in the present Bill.
It is in the experience of those concerned in practice with law reform that if one does not take advantage of one's opportunities, a good deal of time may be lost. The Bill already provides for the repeal of several ancient enactments which relate to maintenance and champerty. Indeed, the noble Viscount at one time was under the impression that the repeals were included in anticipation of the provision to abolish the two offences of maintenance and champerty. That, however, was a misunderstanding. The repeals were included because the enactments were unnecessary in that they duplicated the Common Law offences. Therefore, what this Amendment does is to abolish maintenance and champerty, but not embracery, as criminal offences. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 6, after ("of") insert ("maintenance (including champerty, but not embracery),").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred to the Law Commission's document which, as I think we pointed out some time ago, suffers from the defect of not having a number. I am sure that this will be put right on subsequent occasions so that one can more easily refer to it. I 'have no doubt whatever that noble Lords on this side of the House will agree to the abolition of these now, I think, obsolete crimes and that this should be done in this Bill. When I made some complaint about the repeals that were proposed in one of the Schedules relating to these matters, the reason I did so was that I thought it would be easier and tidier to deal with the whole matter in one case, rather than bit by bit, anticipating that perhaps at a later stage we should have another Bill which abolished the Common Law offences. Now, of course, there is no reason for such criticism, and, as the noble and learned Lord has said, there are some alterations in the form of the Schedule to change the repeals of these Statutes from the unnecessary section to those which are expressly related to Part II of the Bill. But these are tidying-up matters, and so far as the principle is concerned, I welcome this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ST. VINCENT ELECTIONS
4.15 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs. He said:
"As the House will know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Comonwealth Affairs, invited the Chief Minister of St. Vincent and the Leader of the Opposition to London to discuss the steps necessary to resolve the unfortunate uncertainties about the electoral position which arose from the closeness of the general election results and four outstanding election petitions.
"After full discussion over the past 10 days, agreement has been reached
1072
between Her Majesty's Government and representatives of the Government and of the Opposition Party of St. Vincent that the Secretary of State should appoint a Boundary Commission to delimit 13 constituencies and a supervisor of elections to prepare new electoral rolls and to supervise the next general election which will be held not later than the end of 1968. Until these elections have been held there will, therefore, be no increase in the size of the present Legislature. On this basis, and subject to the enactment of the West Indies Bill, it was agreed that St. Vincent should become an Associated State not later than June 1, 1967.
"I should like to pay my sincere tribute to the constructive way in which the representatives from St. Vincent took part in these discussions and to the spirit of compromise which they showed in arriving at an agreed solution. It was, I believe, of very great importance to St. Vincent that every effort should have been made to reach an agreed solution.
"I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the document which was signed yesterday afternoon. Since it makes changes in the constitutional and transitional proposals embodied in the earlier White Paper (Cmnd. 3021), it will be published as a White Paper as soon as possible."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for repeating this Statement. I think it speaks for itself, and I do not wish to go into details of the Agreement—at least, not until we have had a chance of looking at the Agreement which is shortly to be published in a White Paper. Meanwhile, I should like to confirm from these Benches that we are delighted to learn that an agreed solution has been reached to the rather tricky constitutional problem which had arisen in this lovely island.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the usual phrase "at a convenient moment after half-past three" seems to-day to have been a little more elastic than usual; but now that we have arrived at the "convenient moment" I should like to express my satisfaction and pleasure that this agreement has been arrived at in

1073
regard to St. Vincent. It would have been most unfortunate if it had not been arrived at. Indeed, even now, of course, St. Vincent will not be in the position of the other States concerned, in that it will not become an associate State this month, when West Indies Bill passes through Parliament, but will have to wait until June.
I should like to ask one question. In the rather peculiar circumstances in St. Vincent, have the Government thought of advising the Government of St. Vincent on the advisability of proportional representation? No doubt the noble Lord will remember that the late Conservative Government imposed proportional representation, with some success, on Guyana.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, as one who, a little over a year ago, enjoyed the hospitality of this delightful island when on a Parliamentary delegation, on which my companions were the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and two Members of another place, may I say how glad I am that an amicable agreement has been reached in this matter?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, thank the noble Lords who have made kind references to this Agreement? I am sure we are all happy that, despite the bitterness that there has been, a spirit of compromise prevailed at this more recent conference.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, we had a number of difficult problems to consider, and on this particular occasion it was not thought wise to introduce, in addition, the possibility of proportional representation.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL
4.20 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
Civil rights in respect of maintenance and champerty
".—(1) No person shall, under the law of England and Wales, be liable in tort for any conduct on account of its being maintenance or champerty as known to the common law, except in the case of a cause of action accruing before this section has effect.
(2) The abolition of criminal and civil liability under the law of England and Wales for maintenance and champerty shall not affect any rule of that law as to the cases in which a contract is to be treated as contrary to public policy or otherwise illegal."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment abolishes maintenance and champerty as torts, while preserving the rule of law under which champertous agreements are unlawful as contrary to public policy. It is the second of the series of Amendments to give effect to the Law Commission's proposals on maintenance and champerty. The modern view of maintenance as a tort is that it consists of the procurement, by direct or indirect financial assistance, of another person to institute, or carry on or defend, civil proceedings, without lawful justification. The tort of champertyis that of maintaining a civil action in consideration of a promise of a share in the proceeds of the action, if successful.
In their Report, the Commission concluded that, owing to the difficulty for the plaintiff of showing that the defendant had no lawful justification for maintaining the action and that the plaintiff suffered damage as a result, the action for damages for maintenance is to-day "no more than an empty shell". They also pointed out that nowadays the great bulk of litigation is in fact financed by third parties, such as insurance companies, trade unions, trade associations, or by the State under legal aid. The Commission considered that maintenance and champerty as torts were now virtually useless, and that there was no point in retaining them. The Government agree.
In paragraphs 16 to 18 of their Report, the Commission referred, however, to one field in which champerty still plays an effective role—the body of case law to the effect that champertous agreements (including "contingency fee" agreements between solicitor and client) are unlawful as contrary to public policy. They thought that this rule of law should be maintained, pending further study in consultation with the Law Society of the question of "contingency fee" arrangements. The present Amendment gives effect to these proposals.
I should not like to move this Amendment without adding that it ought not to be considered that this Amendment does nothing. It is true that a few years ago the Court of Appeal liberalised the

1075
law of maintenance so far as they could, but before that, and most of the time that I have been in practice, if trade unions, as they always do, supported the action of a member financially, one had to tell them that this was not only illegal but a criminal offence. Of course they were very surprised, because I suppose this benefit of membership of a trade union may be more prized by the members than any of the other benefits of the trade union. They always replied, "We have been doing this for years", and I had to say, "Well, it is a criminal offence, but nobody has been prosecuted for certainly two centuries, so you need not worry about that. As to its being a tort, it is necessary for anybody who wants to sue you for damages for that tort to prove that he has suffered pecuniary loss. If your member wins the action, his opponent cannot say he has suffered pecuniary loss because he has been made to pay what is due, but if your member loses the action you must pay the other side's costs. If you pay the other side's costs, then in practice there would be no action of maintenance against you." This is the reason why all unions always pay the other side's costs if they lose. Then I had to add, "There is a third thing against which I cannot protect you. If some disgruntled member chooses to issue a writ in the Chancery Division for a declaration that the payment made by the union to the solicitors was ultra vires, you have not any answer to this, and that is a risk you must expect to run."
The law has always been that if a man brings an action it has to be brought on his own bottom, as the old cases used to say, and he cannot rely on any money provided by anybody else except for a very narrow range of exceptions: a father can maintain an action for a son, an employer can maintain an action for an employee, or anyone can maintain an action if he has a legal interest in it, but not if he has merely a common-sense interest in it. And even the Court of Appeal could not, of course, reverse a decision of your Lordships' House. A trade union general secretary had been badly libelled for things he was said to have done or not done as general secretary, and his union maintained an action for him paying his legal expenses. The House of Lords held that this payment
1076
was ultra vires, because although from the common-sense point of view the union had an interest in the case, a libel action is brought for a man's own reputation, for which he alone is concerned, and the union was held to have no legal interest in the case.
As the noble Viscount and other noble Lords know, a few years ago the Court of Appeal did their best in an action in which a number of riparian owners with fishing rights joined together to sue some trading concern which was polluting the river. That was held to be all right. Though the Court of Appeal could not interfere in the case of defamation because of decisions in your Lordships' House, they liberalised the law as far as they could. We are getting rid of something to-day which, in these days of legal aid and insurance companies, really is an anachronism. Before formally moving the Amendment, may I say that I am proposing, if your Lordships agree, and if none of your Lordships dissent, to move the next five Amendments together, because they all involve the same point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has drawn attention to this most important Amendment—at least by comparison with the rest of the Amendments we are discussing this afternoon—and to the Report from the Law Commission which explains it. Although I have no doubt that noble Lords on this side of the House will be glad to see the matter tidied up, nevertheless there are two points I should like to raise.
First of all, this Bill purports to be a Bill on Criminal Law, and although I understand and appreciate the noble and learned Lord's enthusiasm to see these matters dealt with as and when he can, and that he has taken the opportunity to put this Amendment in Part II, it comes strangely into a Bill with the title of Criminal Law Bill. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would contemplate amending the Short Title, as he is proposing to amend the Long Title, so that there will be no doubt about it. Because although the noble and learned Lord has explained that most people will

1077
be glad that the two torts are to be abolished, nevertheless there is still in subsection(2) of this new clause a very important matter which is not being dealt with; in other words there is being maintained this matter of public policy largely concerned with solicitors, and people who may wish to know the up-to-date law on this subject will hardly look for it in the Criminal Law Act 1967. Therefore, when it comes to the consideration on Third Reading, I think there might be something to be said for turning this into the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, or something of that nature.
The other point arises out of the continuation of the rule of public policy which is dealt with in subsection (2). Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what is being done about this, because the Law Commission pointed out in paragraph 17(3) of their Report that the champerty arrangement into which a solicitor may, possibly unknowingly, enter, is a matter where the law in this country is very different from the law abroad. For instance, the Report draws attention to the possibility of an English solicitor being asked to act for parties resident in a jurisdiction where litigation on the contingency fee basis is lawful—for instance, in the United States and some of the Common Market countries. I have no idea what the complexities of this sort of situation might be, or where, if anywhere, the English courts might come in. But they might come in, otherwise this matter would not be dealt with by the Law Commission; and if we are going to face a situation internationally, where we hope that our solicitors and other people will be dealing more and more with countries in the rest of Europe and in the United States, then the sooner something is done about this little technicality, which still remains as the only left-over of the old tort of champerty, the better. I should be glad if the noble and learned Lord could tell us whether the Law Commission are getting on with their consultations on this, and whether we may expect another Report from them on this matter soon. Apart from those two points, I welcome this Amendment, and I hope that noble Lords on this side will do the same.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I also welcome this Amendment and should
1078
like to say how fascinating I found the speech of the noble and learned Lord. He made me feel slightly guilty, because I still remember some workmen's compensation cases I did about forty years ago on the instructions of a trade union. I am afraid that I gave them none of the warnings which I see quite clearly from the Lord Chancellor's speech I ought to have given.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am much obliged for the observations that have been made. On the first point, of course the last Amendment proposes an alteration in the Title. This is something that cannot be done in another place, but your Lordships always can do it. So far as the Title is concerned, I will certainly consider that, and if the noble Viscount would care to let me have a line as to what he thinks it ought to be as amended, I should be most grateful.
On the second point, the question of "contingency fees" is, I know, under discussion. I do not know how far discussions have gone. It would be a great change in our law if contingency fees were allowed. At the same time, there is a good deal to be said for them. Most countries have them. You do at least know where you are. I remember a member of the Bar, who is now a High Court Judge, telling me that a friend of his had been left an interest in an American will, and when in New York he went to see a lawyer, because he understood that an action would have to be brought. The lawyer said, "If you leave the papers overnight, I will let you know in the morning". In the morning the lawyer said: Yes, he thought it was a good case. The Englishman asked what the costs would be, and he was told they would be 25 per cent. of anything recovered in the action. As the Englishman had already been told that that was the customary proportion in New York, he said: "I quite understand that if we win. But what happens if we lose?" The American lawyer said: "Sir, do you take us for shyster lawyers, charging clients if we lose?"
There is considerable merit in acting on the basis that you do not have to pay anything if you lose the action, but if you win, then you pay 25 per cent. of the damages, or whatever it is, to the

1079
lawyers. You know exactly where you are from the start. This will no doubt be considered, and perhaps particularly if we are to be more closely associated with Europe.
I remember a case in the High Court, a few years ago, in which a solicitor agreed to bring an action for a Frenchman against an English concern. It was a big and complicated action. Quite naturally, the Frenchman had agreed in France with another Frenchman to put up the money for the costs, provided that he got such-and-such a proportion of the proceeds. The English solicitor, being asked to do so by the clients, drew up for them an agreement putting it into a formal agreement. After a couple of years' hard work on the case the solicitor succeeded in recovering £40,000 for the Frenchman. Then, when he asked to be paid his costs, the Frenchman said, "Oh, I am told that in England the agreement which you drew up for us was a wholly illegal agreement, and the result of that is that you are not entitled to any costs at all".
The Court of Appeal said, "Yes, that is right". I said, "This is most serious, because if an American tourist is injured here, when he goes home he would ask his American lawyer to start an action here for damages through an English solicitor. The English solicitor may know that the probability is that the American lawyer is being paid a contingency fee; and, anyway, in modern conditions of insurance companies and legal aid, all this is out of date." They said: "But this is a criminal offence". I pointed out that there had been no prosecutions for at least 200 years. They said: "It is on the Statute Book. Parliament has not repealed it. How can we say that something is not a tort which is a criminal offence?" However, my Lords, I will find out from the Law Commission and let the noble Viscount know how far the negotiations have proceeded.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals (general)]:
4.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 6. 7, 8, 9, and 10, which are all paving
1080
Amendments. They remove from Part I of Schedule 3, the repeals relating to maintenance and champerty. By later Amendments, these repeals are included in Schedule 4, together with the other repeals already contained in that Schedule to give effect to the Law Commission's proposals to abolish other obsolete crimes. The repeals in Schedule 3 were recommended by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in the draft Bill attached to their Report on felonies and misdemeanours, on the ground that the provisions duplicate the Common Law offences. Now that Common Law offences of maintenance and champerty are to be abolished as obsolete, the right place for all these repeals of the statutory provisions relating to maintenance the champerty is Schedule 4, "Repeals (Obsolete Crimes)". The present Amendments will avoid having repeals relative to maintenance and champerty in two different Schedules to the Bill. From what the noble Viscount said just now, I understood that that he would approve of this. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 47, column 3, leave out ("25").
Page 17, leave out lines 49 to 51.
Page 18, leave out lines 4 to 7.
Page 18, leave out lines 16 and 17.
Page 18, leave out lines 30 and 31.
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the repeals of obsolete or unnecessary enactments:
Page 19 line 52, at end insert—

"3 & 4 Will.4. c. 74.

The Fines and Recoveries Act 1833.

In section 33 the words from 'or if any person, protector of a settlement,' to 'continuance of such estate', and the word 'other'.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, now we are in real trouble, but I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. This Amendment repeals some obsolete or unnecessary provisions in Section 33 of the Fines and Recoveries Act 1833 concerning the consequences which follow if the protector of a settlement is convicted of treason or felony or in certain other events.
The 1833 Act set up a new method of barring entails in place of the old system of fines and recoveries. A lawyer could address your Lordships for a long time about fines and recoveries, but I hope that that will not be necessary. A recovery was a bogus action resulting in a bogus judgment; a fine was a bogus action resulting in a bogus settlement. Under it in certain cases the consent of the protector of a settlement (normally the person in possession) is required to enable a person entitled to settled property as tenant in tail (but not yet in possession) to bar the entail and all subsequent interests and thereby to obtain a fee simple in remainder. Under Section 33 of the Act, if the protector is convicted of treason or felony, the High Court becomes protector of the settlement. The reference to conviction of felony will become inoperative as a result of the Bill; and since entailed interests nowadays are of relatively little importance, and, moreover, persons convicted are in general free to manage their own affairs, there seems no reason to devise any new ground for disqualification to replace that of conviction of felony. If the disqualification on this ground is abolished, there is no practical reason for keeping alive the corresponding provision in the case of a convicted traitor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 52, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I entirely understand Why we are proposing in this Bill to repeal the words which set out the consequence that shall follow
"If any person, protector of a settlement, shall be convicted of treason or felony".
The Act says that certain things shall happen, and that the High Court of Chancery may deal with the matter in the way set out. What I do not understand is why, in a Bill which is entitled 'Criminal Law Bill', we go on to deal with circumstances which give a jurisdiction to the High Court of Chancery to do certain matters, if a certain person
"not being the owner of a prior estate under a settlement shall be protector of such a settlement and shall be an infant; or, if it shall be uncertain whether the last-mentioned person be living or dead".
If this is going to be turned into a Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions
1082
Bill) so be it. But I cannot see what justification there is for tacking on to the repeal, which clearly relates to treason or felony, all the rest of these matters, which patently do not. I have not drawn the line at doing away with amercements under Magna Carta on this stage of the Bill, but there is something to be said for trying to deal with this subject within the framework of the Bill itself.
This is a Schedule which appears to the Bill by virtue of Clause 10, which says:
"The enactments mentioned in Schedule 3 to this Act (which includes in Part I certain enactments connected with matters in this part of this Act but already spent, obsolete or redundant apart from this Act) arc hereby repealed …"
With what matters in this Part of the Bill does this part of the repeal connect? It does not seem to me that it has anything whatever to do with what is said in Clause 10. If we are to go as wide as this in the repeals, possibly we shall have to look again at Clause 10 and at the Short Title as well.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Viscount has said, but I do not think that this proposal goes further than it should. Some amendment had to be made because of the reference to felony, with which I have already dealt. It is right to say that the opportunity has been taken to include in the repeal two other provisions in Section 33 concerning protectors of a settlement which are also obsolete or unnecessary. The first is the provision that where a person appointed by the settlor as protector under Section 32 of the Act or his substitute as protector is an infant or cannot be found, the High Court shall be protector in his place. Section 32 was itself repealed by the Law of Property (Amendment) Act 1924, on the ground that it was useless and not used, and therefore the related provision in Section 33 can be treated as obsolete.
The second additional provision in Section 33 to be repealed is the provision that where the settlor declares in the settlement that the person who was owner of a prior estate under the settlement and would under the Act be the protector of the settlement is not to be so, and the settlement does not appoint anybody in his place, the High Court shall be the protector. This power of the

1083
settlor to exclude the person who would be protector under the Act in favour of the High Court seems useless now that the settlor's power under Section 32 to exclude that person in favour of his own nominee was abolished as useless in 1924. Therefore it was thought right and proper to deal with those two incidental matters, as this section had in any event to be amended.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after the item relating to The Consular Salaries and Fees Act 1891:

"56 & 57 Vict.c. 71.

The Sale of Goods Act 1893.

Section 22(2)."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is to repeal Section 22(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893. It is consequential on the repeal (by Schedule 3, Part I, of the Bill) of the obsolete Sale of Horses Act 1555 and Sale of Horses Act 1588. The Acts of 1555 and 1588 provide for certain regulations to be observed in the sale of horses in markets, including the keeping of notes of sales, and for the recovery in certain circumstances of stolen horses sold in accordance with the regulations. The regulations have long since ceased to be observed, and the Acts no longer serve any purpose. The Bill repeals them in preference to making a verbal adaptation of a reference in the 1588 Act to the "fellonye" of stealing a horse.
Section 22(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 provides that nothing in Section 22, which sets out the rule as to the passing of a good title to goods sold in market overt,
"shall affect the law relating to the sale of horses".
The early Acts had the effect that a sale of a stolen horse in market overt but not in accordance with the regulations under the Acts did not give the buyer a good title. Subsection (2) of Section 22 preserved this rule. Although the subsection does not refer expressly to the 1555 and 1588 Acts, it was included in Section 22 only because of those Acts.
As the noble Viscount will agree, our standard work on sale of goods is
1084
Chalmers, because Chalmers was himself the draftsman of the Act, so he knows what the Act was supposed to do. He makes it quite clear in his notes that the sole reason for the existence of subsection (2) is as follows:
"The Sale of Horses Act 1555 and the Sale of Horses Act 1588 lay down complicated regulations for the sale of horses in fairs or markets. These regulations are never observed in practice."
He makes it clear that the sole point of subsection (2) relates to those two Acts, and if those two Acts are going, therefore this subsection of the Sale of Goods Act ought to go too. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, all I would say is that it speaks volumes for the erudition both of Chalmers and of the Parliamentary draftsmen.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment repeals the entry relating to Section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1870 in Schedule 9 to the Criminal Justice Act 1948. There is no purpose in retaining this entry because the words which it amends are being repealed by the entry, already in Schedule 3, Part III, Page 25 of the Criminal Law Bill, relating to Section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1870. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 16, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 9 the entry relating to the Forfeiture Act 1870.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on this Amendment, Amendment No. 14, we find ourselves in the ecclesiastical field. Section 55(1)(a) of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 at present provides that a priest or deacon shall be deprived of his preferment if he is convicted of treason or felony, or on indictment for misdemeanour, and is sentenced to imprisonment (or to death in the case of treason). Some amendment to this provision is necessary, consequentially on the abolition of felony, and the Church authorities have been consulted

1085
about what this should. be. They have agreed to the Amendment now proposed. If they obviously think it is right, 1 hope your Lordships will also. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 15, at end insert—
(" Church Assembly Measure

1963 No. 1.

The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963.

In section 55(1)(a) the words' is convicted of treason or felony, or' and the words of a misdemeanour'.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this meets the point raised by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, at the very beginning of the Committee stage of this Bill, and I am sure the House is grateful to the Government for this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals (Obsolete Crimes)]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 together, if your Lordships do not object, for they deal with the same point. They add to Schedule 4 the repeals of enactments concerning maintenance and champerty which the earlier Amendment removed from Schedule 3, Part I. One new repeal is included. This is in the Ordinance of Conspirators. This contains a definition of conspirators which relates mostly to maintenance, and is in any event now wholly obsolete, and also a definition of champertors. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 29, line 21, at beginning insert—

("3 Edw. 1

The Statute of West-minster the First.

Chapter 25.

(Statutes of uncertain date—20 Edw. 1).

Statutum de Conspiratoribus

The whole Act.

28 Edw. 1. c. 11.

(Champerty).

The whole Chapter.

1 Edw. 3. Stat. 2 c. 14.

(Maintenance).

The whole Chapter.

1 Ric. 2. C. 4.

(Maintenance).

The whole Chapter.")

Line 36, column 3, leave out ("Section 3") and insert ("The whole Act")
Page 30, line 31, at beginning insert—

("33 Edw. 1.

Ordinacio de Conspiratoribus.

The whole Act.

7 Ric. 2. c. 15.

(Maintenance).

The whole Chapter.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I again thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation, and also for having put in the Statute "the 33rd year of Edward I", to which I drew attention on Second Reading.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is an Amendment to extend the Long Title. It is consequential, to give effect to the Law Commission's proposal to abolish the torts of maintenance and champerty.
May I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate on the Report stage of this Bill, and particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 7, after ("crimes") insert ("together with the torts of maintenance and champerty").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.