Lords Sitting of 27 June 1967

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

THE YEMEN: EGYPTIAN USE OF POISON GAS
2.36 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 they will instruct Lord Caradon to condemn in the General Assembly of the United Nations the illegal and inhuman use of poison gas by the Egyptians in the Yemen.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government deplore and condemn the use of poison gas by any nation, but I doubt whether this is the appropriate time for us to raise the matter in the United Nations. It would not achieve the effect intended and it would all too probably be used to divert attention from the main issues of the moment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that many people think that this matter should be brought up, perhaps at some future date? And, though many people may agree with the noble Lord that this may not be the right time, could he give us some hope that the matter will be brought up eventually?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not exclude the possibility that the matter will be brought up eventually. But as this poison gas has been used by Egypt against the Arabs, we feel that it is for the Arabs to take the lead in putting an end to this particular form of fractricide. While, as I say, I do not exclude the
80
possibility of bringing up this matter at some future date, I believe that our efforts at the United Nations at the moment ought to be concentrated on finding a solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, has the noble Lord any information as to whether the Egyptians are still using poison gas in the Yemen, since the events of the last three weeks?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, there is no firm evidence, because as we have no diplomatic representatives in the Yemen we have no direct evidence of events there; but there are well-substantiated reports that lethal gas has been used on several occasions, and may have been used since the events in the Arab-Israeli war.

WATER SUPPLIES AND LEAD PIPING
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given advice, and, if so, what advice, to water undertakers as to the necessity of correcting water supplies which are liable to dissolve lead.]
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, no general advice has been given, since the normal remedy, treatment of the water with alkali, is simple and well known.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a recent survey carried out by the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Liverpool showed that in county boroughs with a population of 20 million, 95 per cent. had water supplies which were liable to dissolve lead. Does not this require attention?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I was not aware of that. The information I have certainly does not cover that point; though there is much else that I can read to the noble Lord if he so desires. I understand that by-laws can be made by statutory water undertakers where the problem is acute. I may add that the use of lead pipes for water is declining and

81
in many parts of the country this practice does not now exist. But I will certainly bring the noble Lord's concern to the attention of the Minister.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, on the latter part of my noble friend's reply, may I ask whether he is aware that probably three-quarters of the houses in this country have lead pipes for water and that the introduction of copper and synthetic tubes has been quite recent?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I was not unaware of that information, but I thank the noble Lord for giving it me.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that normally lead is not soluble in water?
LORD SORENSEN: I am afraid that I did not hear the noble Lord's question.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: It was not very important.

RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and send to the Commons.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
CHURCHES AND UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
PITTENWEEM HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

IRISH SAILORS AND SOLDIERS LAND TRUST BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

WELSH LANGUAGE BILL [H.L.]
2.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Use of Welsh in legal proceedings
1.—(1) In any legal proceeding in Wales or Monmouthshire the Welsh language may be spoken by any party, witness or other person who desires to use it, subject in the case of proceedings in a court other than a magistrates' court to such prior notice as may be required by rules of court; and any necessary provision for interpretation shall be made accordingly.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in the case of proceedings in a court other than a magistrates' court". The noble Lord said: Under the Bill as it stands at the moment, any person who so wishes may use the Welsh language in legal proceedings, but in all courts except magistrates' courts he has to give prior notice, as may be required by the rules of the court, so that proper arrangements may be made for interpretation. This Amendment seeks to include magistrates' courts in this provision so that notice would have to be given by a person who wished to speak the Welsh language in a magistrates' court. I raised this matter during the Second Reading debate, as it seemed to me that there might well be delays and

83
difficulties if persons who wished to speak Welsh were not required to give prior notice that they were going to do so. It will certainly happen more often under the provisions of this Bill than in the past that people will wish to speak Welsh, because under the provisions of this Bill anybody may speak Welsh, whereas at present, they may do so only if it is a disadvantage to them to speak English.
What I am suggesting was recommended by Sir David Hughes Parry and his Committee, in paragraph 204 of their Report. Replying to the debate on Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said:
"…hitherto in Welsh-speaking areas interpretation in magistrates' courts has not posed any problem…"
I fully agree with that. What worries me is what is going to happen in predominantly English-speaking areas in Wales, and particularly in Monmouthshire, if there is no requirement for people to give prior notice if they wish to be heard in Welsh.
The noble Baroness continued:
"and in any event the adjournment of a magistrates' court is not quite so inconvenient or expensive as would be the case with a higher court".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1139; 15/6/67.]
I agree with that also, but I do not think that Welsh-speaking Welshmen will be particularly pleased if every time they come to court and speak in Welsh the case is adjourned until an interpreter is found. So it seems to me that it would be better to leave in the provision that notice must be given in all cases, and depend on the rules of the court as to what the requirement is. In other words, in Welsh-speaking areas there may well be no need to specify that prior notice must be given, but in certain other areas, where the normal language is English, the rules of the court could specify that if a person wished to speak Welsh he should give notice. I believe that this would prove a more practical arrangement. If the Bill is left in its present form, whatever difficulties may arise in future can never be put right. A court could never require prior notice, unless there was an amendment to the law, whereas if what I suggest is done, courts could require notice but if they did not wish to do so it could be left out of the rules of the court. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("in the case of proceedings in a court other than a magistrates' court").—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD OGMORE: I hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment but will leave the Bill as it is at the moment. There are advantages both ways, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, indicated, but I think that on balance it is better to leave the Bill as it is. The Bill seems to be more insistent on the rights of Welsh-speaking Welshmen than was the Hughes Parry Committee—plus royaliste que le roi. I believe that they were thinking more in terms of the county court or of the High Court than of the magistrates' court. If we insisted on this Amendment, I believe that litigants, witnesses, defendants or prosecutors would turn up without giving any prior notice, so that there would have to be an adjournment anyway.
I do not think that it would have any practical effect to leave in these words. In due course it would be well understood in English-speaking areas that if a man wanted to conduct a case in Welsh, then he must give the clerk notice. But the real reason I am against the Amendment is that it would spiritually defeat the object of the Bill. The object of the Bill is that the Welsh and English languages should be put on the same basis in Wales. If we are going to say that everybody who wants to speak Welsh has to give prior notice, the whole object of the Bill is gone. In areas where 75 per cent. of the people speak Welsh, it would be better if a person had to give notice that he wanted to speak English and had an English interpreter present. I accept that this is a matter of balance, and on balance I think that the Government are right and would ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment.
LORD MAELOR: Let me say at the outset that I regard the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in high esteem. Indeed, he is an excellent example of an English-speaking Welshman. But I hope that I am not using too strong an adjective to describe his Amendment when I say that it is simply preposterous. Think of the situation—a man in his own country, speaking the language of that country, has to ask permission of the court to be allowed to speak that language. If that Welshman committed a crime in England

85
—rarely done, by the way—one could understand him giving notice to the English court that he cannot speak and understand English, and therefore gives due notice that he will be asking for an interpreter. But for a man in his own country, who speaks Welsh habitually, to be asked to give due notice that he will be speaking his own language, I say again is simply preposterous. I hope that my adjective is not too strong. Indeed, it will whittle away the whole idea of the Bill of giving the same validity to the Welsh language in Wales as is now given to the English language. I hope that your Lordships will reject this Amendment. But first I would appeal to the noble Lord to withdraw it.
LORD ARWYN: I was not present on the Second Reading of this Bill, much to my misfortune, and I should like to join with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Maelor in my respect for the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. There are few Peers in Wales who have done so much work as he. The situation with regard to the status of the Welsh language stems from the Act of Union of 1536. Anyone interested in the results of the machinations of Thomas Cromwell, who was responsible for that Act, can see something of it in the film which is now in London. It shows the character of the man. We had to suffer for 400 years because of that man's machinations. A lot of this was due to the lack of virility among the Welsh nobility of those days.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would my noble friend permit me to interrupt him? I gather that he wishes to commend the Bill to your Lordships. We have in front of us an Amendment, which is of a very narrow scope, and a considerable amount of business which I am sure is of interest to all quarters. I wonder whether my noble friend would agree that his commendation of the Bill could be given on Third Reading, when I assure him that he would have a proper basis for so doing. I think that it would be wrong for us to go too wide on what is a pretty narrow issue, particularly in view of the long list of business that is now before us.
LORD ARWYN: I accept my noble friend's suggestion and apologise to your Lordships. It was not my intention to make such a long speech as the bundle in my hand might suggest. At the same
86
time, I wanted to say that there is a wave of self-respect coming up from Wales. I think that the noble Lord's Amendment may cause some repercussions which he himself does not realise, and if it could be withdrawn that would help us very much indeed.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am wondering why the Welsh seem to react to these matters more passionately than the Scots or the Irish. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the comments he made in introducing the Amendment, and perhaps any words that I say may seem rather inadequate after the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Maelor and Lord Ogmore. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred to the spiritual policy of the Bill and I should like to underline that this is one of the most important reasons why the Government do not wish to accept this Amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will be aware, the present position, under the 1942 Act, is that a person who wishes to speak Welsh in a magistrates' court does not have to give notice. To say that he should now have to give notice would be to derogate from the rights that he already has. I accept the noble Lord's point that there may be more people who may ask to use Welsh in magistrates' courts, but I hope that he will accept the evidence of the Hughes Parry Committee that a considerable use of Welsh is already made in Welsh-speaking areas and that outside these areas requests for evidence in Welsh are rare. I repeat that we are in a little doubt about what the position will be in future, but it is clear that adjourning a case in a magistrates' court—and I speak here as one with some magisterial experience—is not uncommon or difficult. People attending almost invariably live locally and little inconvenience is caused by an adjournment. But basically it is important that the Bill itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, said, should be one which gives the Welshman the right to speak Welsh without prior notice in a court of this kind. I hope that the noble Lord will accept this and withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful for what the noble Lady has said. My only concern was to avoid any difficulties, and it struck me that if every time somebody

87
came and spoke Welsh in a predominantly English-speaking court, and if every time the case had to be adjourned, there might well be more ruction than peace. But I am certainly swayed by what has been said by my fellow Welshman, for whom I have a high regard. However, I do not think I am being preposterous. If I am being preposterous, so is the requirement that a Welshman has to give notice in other courts; and so is the Hughes Parry Report preposterous. However, with those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Welsh Versions of statutory forms etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I ought, in connection with Clause 2 of the Bill, to draw special attention to the position of forms used for the purpose of legal proceedings. How the powers conferred by Clause 2 will in fact be exercised is, of course, a matter for the Ministers concerned, but I think I can say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will probably wish to take advantage of the provisions of Clause 2 so as to make available in appropriate cases Welsh versions of the forms most commonly used in criminal proceedings and in some proceedings in juvenile courts relating to children who are in need of care and control or who fail to attend school. Thus, I think it is very likely that there will be available—as I believe there is already available on an unofficial basis—a Welsh version of the form of summons used in a magistrates' court.
But forms used in civil proceedings in the High Court and the county courts stand on a rather different footing, as the Hughes Parry Committee recognised in paragraphs 206 and 207 of their Report. As the Committee said, summonses and other documents used in criminal proceedings normally emanate from the court itself, and there may well be little difficulty in ascertaining whether the defendant to whom the document is
88
addressed would expect to be addressed in Welsh. Moreover, criminal proceedings have a territorial association with the defendant which may be altogether lacking in civil proceedings between private individuals. In civil proceedings the court has little control over documents passing between one party and another, and it would plainly be quite wrong for one side to send the other a document in Welsh which the other party might be quite incapable of understanding.
It is doubtful whether there is really any demand for documents used in such proceedings to be in the Welsh language at all, and it would certainly be a waste of time and money to produce Welsh translations of the very large number of forms used in civil proceedings in the county courts in the absence of clear evidence of a need for them. This is a matter on which the decision must rest with the Lord Chancellor, but I think it quite likely that he will not wish to prescribe Welsh versions of forms of this kind unless it could be shown that they would really serve a useful purpose. Where a Welsh version of a form is used in court proceedings an English version will have to be made available, as well. This will be particularly necessary where the forms are needed in a court outside Wales at a later stage in the proceedings, in the event, for instance, of an appeal. It is obviously essential that anyone into whose hands any form may come should be able to understand everything in it. It will be possible to provide for this, as well as for the possibility of any discrepancy between the Welsh and English versions of a completed form, by means of any order that may be made under Clause 2 of the Bill.
LORD OGMORE: On the Second Reading of the Bill I raised the question of forms, and particularly the language used in them, and I then suggested to the noble Baroness that we might follow the example of Switzerland and Canada—where forms are printed, in the case of Canada, in French and English, and in the case of Switzerland in two or even three languages—and print them in Welsh and English. I am wondering whether in the speech which she has just made this point is covered in full. There will be a great waste of Government money if all Government offices throughout Wales have to keep two sets of every

89
form. One can imagine that in English-speaking areas, such as Radnorshire, where Welsh is not spoken greatly, if every Government office has to keep a duplicate set of forms in case a Welsh form is asked for one a year, it will be a great waste. That is why I suggested the noble Baroness might look into this question.
On the wider question the noble Baroness has raised, there again I suggest that one will have to be guided by experience. It may be that in certain areas where 75 per cent. of the population speak Welsh there will be a call to provide civil litigation forms in Welsh. This may sound very difficult, but I practised for years in Malaya, where we had not only one language, but five or six languages. Commonly we had English, which very few people spoke, anyway; we had Malay; we had Tamil; we had Urdu and several dialects in Chinese. Bearing in mind that sort of situation, one realises that it is not so difficult to deal with just English and Welsh. I suggest to the noble Baroness that the Government should not close their minds on this question of civil proceedings. I do not think it will be found to be anything like so difficult as it seems. At first sight, it may be that we shall have to print in Welsh and in English some civil litigation forms.
As to the pleadings, it may be that if you put the pleadings in one language you will have to supply a translation yourself. So far as I recall, in Malaya (it is some years since I practised there) the court used to provide a translation. At any rate, a translation was always provided. But although the court provided a translation, I rather think that the recipient had to provide his own translation outside the court. In other words, when it came to the judge, he was provided with a translation, but the parties were responsible for providing their own translation of whatever document was required if it was in a language other than their own.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): As I suppose I shall have to decide this matter, it may be helpful if I say a word or two now. May I say that my mind is not at all closed on the question which has been raised? I must bear in mind, I think, that the Hughes Parry Committee was an all-Welsh Committee.
90
It is none the worse for that, but one has to read its report in that light. The Committee, in paragraphs 75 and 76 of the Report, dealing with county courts, said:
"Precise statistics as to the number of cases where evidence has been tendered in Welsh are not available. Such cases often occur in north-west Wales, less frequently in Cardiganshire and Caernarvonshire, and rarely in other parts of Wales. In south-west Wales, including the County Borough of Swansea, the number of persons who expressed a desire to give evidence in Welsh during the last few years showed a tendency to diminish. In a period of six years there were only two cases at Swansea where Welsh was used; and in the Pontypridd County Court evidence was given in Welsh twice in a year. There is virtually no demand for the use of the Welsh language in the County Courts of Breconshire, Montgomeryshire and Radnorshire.
In the six North Wales Counties no practical difficulties are experienced if a witness or party desires to give evidence in Welsh. The judge or his registrar is able to translate for the benefit of non-Welsh advocates or witnesses. In the South Wales courts, in the rare cases where it is required, there is someone present in the Courts who can act as an interpreter or the services of an interpreter can be obtained."
In dealing with documents the Report says:
"We agree with the views expressed to us by the officers of the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary"—
this is after dealing with criminal courts—
"that different considerations apply to civil proceedings in the High Court and the county courts from those which apply to criminal proceedings. In the case of the latter, summonses and other documents normally emanate from the court itself and there may well be little difficulty in ascertaining whether the defendant or other person to whom the document is addressed would expect to be addressed in Welsh. Moreover, criminal proceedings have a territorial association with the defendant which may be altogether lacking in civil proceedings, between the two parties. The position is quite different in civil proceedings. Not only are there many more forms in use in the civil courts—there are, for example, no less than 389 prescribed forms in the county courts—but in civil proceedings, pleadings, notices and other documents are commonly exchanged between the parties, and the court has little control over the issue of documents of this kind.
"For these reasons we think that it is inexpedient to make any changes in the present practice in the case of civil proceedings other than to allow any party or witness to give his evidence in Welsh if he so desires and to ensure that evidence in English should be interpreted for the benefit of Welsh-speaking parties who request it."
My mind is not at all closed about this, though the difficulties of providing

91
389 bilingual forms for practically nobody who wants them might be considerable. But it may not be unfair if I say that I shall start out with a slight feeling that I do not really need to be more Welsh-minded than the Hughes Parry Committee.
LORD OGMORE: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I think, as I said before, that it is a matter in which experience will guide him and others. I would suggest that he does not close his mind for some little time to come—not at the end of these proceedings here—and sees how it goes on. It may be that the præcipe in the county court, or something of that kind, might be in Welsh. I would point out that we are not dealing very much here, certainly in pleadings, with practical matters. As the noble Baroness said, I agree that it is largely a spiritual or psychological matter that we are dealing with; and I think that if the noble and learned Lord can go as far as possible in this field he will give a lot of pleasure to many people.
LORD MAELOR: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in the appeal he has made for having the two languages on the same form. During the Second Reading debate he asked about this matter so far as cheques are concerned. I have brought my cheque book here to-day, for all it is worth. The Midland Bank already have the two languages, English and Welsh, on cheque books, and I find it extremely convenient.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I can add nothing more to that, other than perhaps to hope that the noble Lord is not a director of the aforesaid bank. But I would take this opportunity of telling not only the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, but the noble Lords, Lord Maelor and Lord Moyle, and various others who took part in the discussion, that if they have not had replies from me on the various points raised—the bilingual form was one, and the question of Monmouthshire was another—these will be forthcoming.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ST. ANDREWS LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY BILL
3.16 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Before we turn to the Amendments, on a procedural point I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Procedure Committee in 1961 took the view that it would be undesirable that an Amendment which had been fully debated and decided upon on the previous stages of a Bill should be moved again on Third Reading. Three of these Amendments in fact appeared and were debated on the Committee stage. But, thanks to the co-operation of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, we have contrived to dispense with the Report stage because of the importance of passing this Bill into law; and I am sure that the statement of the Procedure Committee, that it is considered undesirable, still provides us with the flexibility to do what we like in this House, which is one of our greatest advantages.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 4:
Loans
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Board may make a loan to any person to enable him to acquire shares in a company carrying on a shipbuilding undertaking or a main engine manufacturing undertaking if the shares are to be acquired in connection with a grouping scheme.
(5) Any loan under this section shall require the approval of the Minister.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to subsection (5):
"which, however, shall not be withheld without assigning a reason which the Board shall forthwith communicate to the applicant."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, this is an Amendment which was moved on the Committee stage. The purpose of the Amendment is quite simple. It is simply to provide that, where the Minister exercises the power conferred on him by Clause 4(5) to disapprove a loan, he should state the reason to the Board, and that the Board should pass the reason on to the applicant. I certainly do not think it is at all necessary to argue this matter again. I have put the Amendment down again because the noble Lord said, in column 1325 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
"…I will give an undertaking that I shall talk further to my right honourable friend on this and if for some reason it is not possible to amend the Bill in the way the noble Lord wishes, I will see whether it is possible to give an even stronger undertaking in regard to this matter."
I think the point here was that both sides were in agreement that in the ordinary way it would be desirable for the reasons to be given; and the noble Lord was, I think, looking to see how far he could meet our point while safeguarding the public interest. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I agree very much with the arguments of the noble Lord, and I certainly undertook to consider the question to see how far I could strengthen the assurance, even if I could not meet his full requirements. If I recall rightly, on a previous occasion the Minister said that if possible he would give it. I now have a very much stronger assurance, although it does not go the whole way. My right honourable friend has agreed that I can assure your Lordships that it is the intention to give the reasons for withholding approval, and that those reasons would be withheld only when it would be contrary to the public interest or to commercial confidence to do so. So I think we have altered the emphasis. Instead of his giving it if possible, his intention is to do so unless there are reasons for not doing so. I find it difficult to foresee the particular circumstances in which it would be refused,
94
but, after all, this is in a sense experimental, and indeed almost temporary legislation to cover a period of years. I hope that this further, rather stronger, assurance will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, thus giving a stronger assurance. In the ordinary way, I think he would agree that it would have been desirable to have incorporated the gist of what he has said in the Bill itself, and of course I could have drafted an Amendment which would have safeguarded the public interest. It has been done on other occasions, but the noble Lord appealed to us not to pass Amendments which were not absolutely necessary, in order that the shipbuilding industry could get the advantages of the Bill as soon as possible. For that reason, I thank the noble Lord for the assurance that he has given, which I accept with gratitude, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Reports and accounts]:
3.22 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is also an Amendment which was moved at the Committee stage, and it is quite a simple point. The clause says that the Board's report on its functions during the year should include a statement of
"any grants or loans made by the Board during that year, specifying in each case the grantee or borrower and the amount of the grant or loan."
The Amendment seeks to add the words:
"and the rate of interest at which and the period for which the loan is made."
It seems to me this would be useful information for the purposes of Parliamentary control and information. Here again the noble Lord was good enough to indicate that he was sympathetic towards the Amendment, and I hope that he will again be able to give an assurance on this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, at end insert ("and the rate of interest at which and the period for which the loan is made.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, as with the following Amendment, I am asking the House—and the noble Lord has accepted this—to say that in view of the urgency we should not include what

95
he wishes actually in the Statute. May I make very clear that I do not regard this as being a desirable practice for most legislation, but this is an emergency, almost a "crash" procedure. The Board will exist only for about four years, and therefore the need to enshrine it permanently in the Statute is a little less pressing; although again I do not regard that as being entirely desirable legislative practice. However, I can give the definite assurance that my right honourable friend has agreed that the information for which the noble Lord has asked, as to rates of interest and periods of loan made by the Board, will be included in their annual report.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Dissolution of Board]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this, again, is a matter which we discussed on Committee stage, when the noble Lord again expressed sympathy. The point here is that when the Board comes to the end of its existence it will have to make a final report. Clause 9(3) says:
"On the dissolution of the Board its property, and any rights or liabilities to which it is entitled or subject in consequence of its exercise of functions, shall vest in the Minister."
It seems only sensible that Parliament should know what property, what rights and what liabilities are passing from the Board to the Minister. This was one of the purposes of the Amendment on the Order Paper. The other purpose was to ensure that there should be a final report. It is for these two purposes that I move this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"( ) Not later than four months after the Board has ceased to operate, it shall make a general report to the Minister on the exercise of its functions since its appointment, and shall include in the report a statement of the property and each of the rights and liabilities vesting in the Minister by virtue of subsection (3) above."—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I explained to your Lordships that I did not think there was a need for any special report, but I fully agreed with the noble Lord that what he was asking for was reasonable; and arguments which had
96
been adduced—that the information on the rights and liabilities was always available if people looked back through the earlier reports—I did not find entirely satisfactory, because obviously convenience in presentation is of great importance.
Here, again, my right honourable friend has approached the Shipbuilding Industry Board, and although I do not wish to get tied up in the Bill I think that in the absence of legislative procedure it must be a matter for the Board to agree upon, rather than for my right honourable friend to give it a direction. Therefore since the previous stage I am able to give a definite assurance that their final report will cover the matters to which the noble Lord has referred, in that it will include a general report on the exercise of the Board's functions since its establishment and a statement of the property rights and liabilities which will be vested in the Minister on the dissolution of the Board. I am sorry to keep on repeating this, but here again the reason for not incorporating this in the Bill is one that I should not regard as satisfactory with legislation for a permanent statutory body.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance he has been able to give on behalf of the Board and the Government. Also, I am grateful to him for stressing that this is not the usual pattern of behaviour that we should adopt in your Lordships' House and that it is because of the special needs of the shipbuilding industry at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12:
Interpretation
12.—
"main engine manufacturing undertaking" means an undertaking (whether or not carried on in conjunction with an undertaking of any other description) for the manufacture in the United Kingdom of engines for the propulsion of ships of not less than one hundred tons gross tonnage;
3.27 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved to add to the definition of "main engine manufacturing undertaking":
"or of refrigerating equipment for ships defined in Lloyds Register of Shipping under the heading Refrigerated Cargo Installation'."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I am a little fortunate in that the Amendment that appears in my name is a new one and so I have not to make any excuse. On the other hand the subject about which I wish to speak was certainly discussed during the Second Reading debate. What I said on that occasion was that refrigeration is something which is very important to all of us to-day, and that there was a strong case for certain classes of ships to be included in the benefits which are promised to the shipbuilding industry under this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was kind enough to say that he followed the force of my argument although he had not been able to consider the suggestion, and that it was true (and I will say more about this in a moment) that refrigeration is an important ancillary of every ship. He was good enough to say that if there was any further explanation he would be happy to give it on the Third Reading of the Bill. I therefore take advantage of those words to put forward this Amendment.
Refrigeration has advanced greatly in recent years and is used in many ways apart from the ordinary refrigerator that everybody—or nearly everybody—has in his kitchen, and air conditioning and so forth. I am not sure whether it is generally known that there is a large refrigerating plant in the basement of this building, and some of us feel the result of it perhaps more than we want.
I wish to refer to the Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill. It says:
"The object of the Bill is to set up a statutory body to be called the Shipbuilding Industry Board with the function of promoting the ability of the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom to compete in world markets, to enable the Board to give financial assistance for this purpose to shipbuilding and main engine manufacturing firms…"
The question is, how does the refrigerating equipment of a ship come into that object? In all passenger ships and most cargo ships it is an ancillary, not only for kitchen equipment but for air conditioning and so forth. On Second Reading I referred to a type of ship of which the refrigerating plant is not an ancillary; it is something for which the ship was built, and Lloyd's Register of Shipping has a separate section which refers to refrigerated cargo installations. These ships are separately inspected, and by
98
that means Lloyd's cover the great majority of the refrigerated cargo ships in the world. There is also the Bureau Veritas and so on, but Lloyd's really control by their certificates. There are probably about 1,400 ships in the world with that special certificate.
They are mentioned in the Geddes Report. In paragraph 83 the proportion of refrigerated ships under that classification is given as 3 per cent. I think, as a matter of fact, it is probably rather less. Paragraph 90 says:
"The world fleet of refrigerated ships has grown in recent years and this expansion is likely to continue."
Here is something in which we have to compete with foreign builders, who are quoting very low prices. The ship I have in mind, as defined by Lloyd's Register, has certainly propelling machinery, but equally it has a refrigerating plant which is really part of the mechanical equipment of the ship, without any thought of ancillaries.
In most ships, in my experience, the refrigerating compressors and machinery are in some cases right alongside the propelling machinery and in other cases in a separate compartment, and the same engineering staff look after the whole lot, particularly in watches; those normally in charge of the propelling machinery will also during their watch be in charge of the refrigerating plant for which the ship was built; in fact it was built round it. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wondered whether there was a marine refrigerating engine. In the early days there was, but to-day matters have gone ahead and the refrigerating plant is of a nature which can be used for any purpose. In the case of the ships to which I have referred it is applied to keeping the cargoes of those ships and bringing them to their destination, mostly for food, sometimes for other purposes, in good condition.
There is a further point. It is the feeling that the references in the Bill and in the purposes of the Bill which I have already read out to main engines relate to something almost definitely defined as propelling machinery. It would be not a very great alteration, and certainly it would be valuable to our industry, if it were made plain that this very important refrigerating plant is included in main plant. A great many of the main engines

99
are not built in the shipyards—I think there are very few which are—but I can say that at the shipyards where there is a considerable shipbuilding industry there are attached to the yards what are almost branch works of the refrigerating manufacturers. Their men are constantly in the yards, because it is not merely a question of putting in a compressor or something which is driven by oil, or whatever it may be; the whole of the ship is equipped with the necessary apparatus to fulfil its task. That means that there are always in the shipyards a number of men working on that particular aspect of the ships, especially those ships which are defined as a separate class of ship and are inspected by Lloyd's and have to be passed by them, after strict inspection, for the task they have to perform. With those few thoughts, I beg to move the Amendment in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
3.38 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Marquess has made a most cogent case, and I should like to thank him personally for acquainting me in advance with the particular arguments he was going to use. If a case is made by him (with, I think, an unequalled experience of this industry; for I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House knows as much about this subject as the noble Marquess does) one is bound to listen with very great care indeed, and I have taken quite a lot of trouble, first to understand the purpose of the noble Marquess's case and to assess it, and also to provide a reply which I hope will explain why it is impossible to meet what he wishes but, at the same time, goes some slight way in one part to meet him.
Your Lordships will recall that on the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Somers, also referred to steering engines, and frankly this further example indicates the difficulty we are in and why it would be impossible under this Bill to seek to do what the noble Marquess wants. As he knows, the shipbuilding industry is to a very considerable extent an assembly industry. It puts together the products of a very large number of industries,
100
ranging from heavy engineering to electronics, furniture, plastics and so on. The Geddes Report emphasises the importance of bought-in equipment in the economics of shipbuilding and also suggested (I am sure the noble Marquess has seen this), in Chapter 12, ways in which suppliers of equipment could themselves assist the shipbuilding industry to become competitive. Equally, it pointed out the benefits that a competitive shipbuilding industry would bring to the suppliers of ships equipment. This Bill is intended to promote the competitiveness of the shipbuilding industry as such; and although much will flow out in benefit to others, assistance is confined, except in one respect, to that industry. The one respect is that of main propulsion engines.
The reasons why this particular kind of equipment was brought within the scope of the Bill are, first, that the main engine is the largest single piece of equipment which the shipbuilder has to buy, and, secondly, that traditionally main engine building has been regarded as part of the shipbuilding industry, and is at present carried out largely by shipbuilding firms or by firms associated with shipbuilding firms. So I take the point of the noble Marquess that there may be other firms who are closely associated, geographically or otherwise, with engine building firms. To extend the provisions of the Bill to cover assistance to all other industries which supply equipment of one kind or another would mean extending it over a wide area. Refrigeration equipment and auxiliary engines, again, for working the steering gear, are not, in fact, made in the shipbuilding industry—at least, not for the most part—but by firms outside that industry, in many cases in conjunction with the manufacture of similar equipment for use in industry generally in the country.
As the noble Marquess knows the definition is precise in this matter; it appears in the definition clause. The main engine is well understood in the industry to mean the large engine, most commonly a slow-speed diesel, but sometimes a steam turbine or medium-speed diesel, which drives the propeller shaft and provides the propulsion for the ship. The definition in the Bill ties the term to "propulsion machinery". The noble Marquess said that we in this House depend on,

101
or are perhaps handicapped by, our refrigeration equipment. But no one would suggest that the refrigerator is part of the propulsion machinery of the House of Lords. The noble Marquess himself is part of that machinery.
I must emphasise that this Bill is drawn specifically in relation to the shipbuilding industry. I hope I have shown to your Lordships that it would mean going far outside the purposes of the Bill and of the Geddes Report if we were to accept this Amendment. I think there are other reasons technically why we cannot meet this within the Bill. But there is one thing that I can say in encouragement: the guarantees given under Clause 7, which are guarantees in relation to the actual shipbuilding, will cover not only the cost of the hull of the ship but all the cost of any equipment, whether it is refrigeration equipment or other kinds of equipment, included in the ship while it is being built. While, therefore, refrigeration equipment will not rank for benefits under Clause 4, or indeed in relation to grants under Clause 2 or Clause 4, or for loans, it will benefit under this particular provision.
Perhaps I may make a further point which I hope will be of interest to the noble Marquess. It is possible that in certain cases shipowners seeking guarantees may wish for foreign equipment to be incorporated in the ship. It is not the intention that the loan obtained by the purchaser under guarantee shall be used for the purchase of imported materials, components and equipment; and a procedure will be set up, similar to that operated on export orders by the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Board of Trade, to ensure that the interests of competitive supplying industries in this country will not be harmed by the provision of a Government guarantee in respect of a contract. Under this procedure, account will be taken, in determining the amount of the guaranteed loan in each case, of the availability, or otherwise, on competitive terms of equivalent products from British sources.
I hope that I have been able to convince the noble Marquess that to extend the provisions of the whole of this Bill and of particular grants and Government loans to refrigeration equipment would introduce great difficulties. In a sense, it is arguable that by bringing in main
102
engines we have already created a difficulty, and at every point beyond that we create wider ones. Nevertheless, I hope that I have been able to convince him now, though I have not been able to do so before, that this Bill will be a help, and that the help under the guarantees will be available to the British refrigeration industry.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I did, perhaps, miss out one point on this subject. The ships carrying this special nomenclature of refrigerated cargo vessels account for only about 3 per cent. of the vessels in question. In fact, the 3 per cent. figure is given in paragraph (8) of the Geddes Report, but it is rather less than that.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is of course a question of demarcation, something which has bedevilled the shipbuilding industry in other ways. There again, one can say the same thing about passenger ships. Four per cent. of ships are passenger ships. I hope that I have made clear the reasons why we cannot accept this Amendment, and our conviction that the Bill will none the less be of help.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I certainly shall not divide the House, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before we part with this Bill perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Perhaps it would be convenient if we said our final words on the Motion, That this Bill do now pass. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass, and will reserve my final remarks until other noble Lords have spoken.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Shackleton.)
3.49 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is one that is supported by both sides of the House. Primarily, it is to set up a Shipbuilding Industry Board which is to operate for three and a half years, or at most four and a half years, in the hope that, as a

103
result of the assistance that the Board can give towards the regrouping of shipbuilding firms and of marine engineering firms, and the additional assistance, by way of guarantees, which the Bill enables the Board to give, the shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom will be enabled to make itself competitive and to regain a proportion of the business which it has lost.
There are four points that I should like to make. They are all points of detail which we have already covered, but not, I think, covered completely. One of the ways in which assistance can be given is by loans for the re-training of workers. Under Clause 4 it is possible to give such loans on condition that the re-training is done for employment by the shipbuilding undertaking and for the purpose of that shipbuilding undertaking. I suggested at an earlier stage that it may well be convenient for one group, say one of the two groups on the Clyde, or one of the two groups in the North-East, to do the re-training for the other group, or indeed for other independent companies as well. The point we were discussing was whether it would be possible for the group which did not do the actual training to get a loan. It seems to me that it would be possible for the Board to give a loan to the group whose workers are being re-trained irrespective of where they are being re-trained. I should like to have this assurance from the Government. I feel that as the clause is drafted it is possible for such a loan to be given, provided that the workers are to be employed by the person to whom the loan is given, and the re-training is for the purpose of that shipbuilding undertaking.
My second point deals with the question of the remission of interest on loans. Under Clause 5 such remission must be interest in respect of any period before the end of the 1970s. As I pointed out at an earlier stage, it may well be that the loan is only given in 1970, in which case the scope for remission of interest will be very small indeed. I do not know whether the noble Lord is able to give any further explanation on this point, but it seems to be a small blemish on the Bill.
My third point is one on which the two sides of the House are not agreed,
104
that is, that Clause 6 allows the Board to take shares in the company as the counterpart of the money that it advances. There is no reason in principle why this should not be done, but there are very good practical reasons why it should not be done. I do not want to repeat the arguments which I put forward at the earlier stage. I would only say that I hope the Board will have regard to the practical disadvantages with regard to its own standing in the eyes of the industry if it takes shares in one of the groups and not in another. It will be considered to have more of an interest in the group in which it holds shares than it has in the others. I feel that this will be the case even though the total amount of money, whether by grant or loan or shares taken in the company, is the same as between the two groups. It will still be thought that the Board has a greater interest in the group in which it has taken shares.
The fourth and last point that I wish to raise relates to guarantees. The argument I put forward at an earlier stage was that it was unfortunate that there should be discrimination between different firms or different groups in this country as to whether there can be a guarantee or not. The Bill makes it clear that they are entitled to guarantees if they are undertaking reorganisation of the resources used by the firm. "Resources" is defined in the interpretation clause as follows:
"'resources', in relation to any undertaking, means the buildings, plant, equipment and manpower used for the purposes of the undertaking".
It is sufficient, under the Bill, if they are making satisfactory progress in the preparation of plans as well as putting them into effect. I pointed out that there are difficulties involved in this, because it may well be that an order may come along before much progress has been made in the preparation of the plans. I suggested that it was desirable that, so long as any indication of the intention to make some degree of reorganisation was apparent, such guarantees should be available, otherwise one would have a most unfortunate discrimination between different firms. One might even put a firm or a group in the position of losing an order which would have enabled it to carry on and reorganise.

105
Finally, while this Bill deals with reorganisation and re-grouping, surely the principal issue here is the will within the industry itself to be competitive. This is fundamental to the whole exercise, and unless all those in the industry are well aware of the absolute necessity for so arranging their relations with one another in the industry as to enable competitive quotations and a sound profit to be made, then all the money that may be advanced by way of grants, loans, and all the rest of it, will have been wasted. Therefore, in supporting this Bill, I am sure I speak for all your Lordships when I say that all the Bill can do is to put the ball at the feet of the shipbuilding industry in the hope that it will shoot a goal. The goal is to make the industry competitive in the world so that it can prosper and make progress, not only in the near future but over a long period of years.
3.58 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should like to take up the note of the last few sentences of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the Second Reading of the Bill, and therefore was not able to raise a matter which seems to me to be of very great importance. I refer to the question of whether there is going to be an abandonment of the restrictive practices and the bad relations between employers and employed, which are the chief reasons that this industry has declined in the way it has. The decline is not only wholly lamentable, but sensational. In 1946, 53 per cent. of all the tonnage in the world that was launched, was launched in this country. Fifteen years later, by 1961, it had fallen to 15 per cent. If I rightly understand some figures I have been given, by 1967 it had fallen to about 8 per cent.
I criticised the Shipbuilding Credit Bill introduced by the Conservative Government in 1964 on the ground that it made no provision whatsoever for this problem of demarcation disputes and restrictive practices being tackled. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in introducing this Bill said that the 1964 credit scheme was intended to provide a breathing space which our shipbuilders would be able to use to strengthen their competitive power. By the end of 1964 it was already clear that these hopes were unlikely to be fulfilled. That in large measure was due to the fact that this financial assistance had been
106
given unconditionally, and nothing in fact was done to alter the restrictive practices and old-fashioned methods which were insisted upon by the trade unions. The experience which the Government have had in the case of the Fairfield shipbuilding yard, what has happened in the case of liner trains, what is happening at the present time in London at the Stratford base—all these illustrate how useless it is to provide the means for modernising an industry if there is not, in the words of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, a willingness to use them.
If I construe this Bill aright, it is possible for the Shipbuilding Industry Board to take some steps along these lines. The grants under Clause 3 are conditional upon putting into effect
"a reorganisation of the resources used by him"—
that is, the recipient of the grant—
"for the purpose of carrying on that undertaking and that the reorganisation is likely to lead, or has led, to increased efficiency in the use of those resources for that purpose, the Board may … make grants to that person."
When one turns to page 9 one finds that the definition of "resources" includes manpower. Therefore I think it would be possible under this Bill for the Board, and therefore for the Government, whose consent is required under subsection (2) of Clause 3, to pay a grant. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can give any indication that the Government are prepared to use this Bill, when it becomes an Act, for the purpose of achieving some progress in that way.
My own Party indicated—it was said by Mr. Marples in another place, and it was largely repeated by a noble friend of mine in this House—that it was for the industry to manage its own affairs. I do not think that that is entirely the doctrine of the present Government; and certainly when public money is being made available to give assistance to an industry it is entirely proper that that assistance should not be given unconditionally. Certainly, it is proper to insist upon such conditions as will ensure that the money is well spent and is useful for the purpose of bringing about an improvement in the prosperity of that industry. I shall be glad to know from the Government whether they are of the opinion that this Bill enables them to take steps of that kind, and for an

107
assurance that it is, as I hope, their intention to do so.
4.3 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, on the final stages of this Bill I should like, first of all, to express again my gratitude to noble Lords for the speed with which we have dealt with this important subject, on which there were a number of real issues of significance to discuss. Thanks to the rapidity of the House of Lords we have, in fact, completed our business rather sooner than my right honourable friend even thought possible, and in the process, even though we have not altered the Bill itself, I think we have made provision to ensure certain necessary improvements in its administration. I hope that the Bill will shortly receive the Royal Assent. Before I make my final valedictory remarks, I should like to deal with some of the points which have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, raised again the difficult question which really touches on the criteria for deciding whether a guarantee should be given. He asked for an assurance that so long as a shipbuilder had signified (I hope I have this correct) his intention of going ahead with plans for reorganisation, and had indicated that he was doing something in that direction, a guarantee on the ship which he was to build would not be refused. In a sense this was a rather different approach from that of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in relation to one particular and very important aspect of shipbuilding efficiency. I am afraid that it is not possible to give the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, such an assurance.
In the first place, the application of the criteria is very much a matter of judgment which rests with the Shipbuilding Industry Board. We have set up the Board; we have given it a job, and we have given it certain absolute criteria, concerning the need to achieve a competitive shipbuilding industry, under which to operate. And the Board will have to test its decisions against its interpretation of those basic principles. It is not enough for a firm merely to say that they are going to reorganise, and possibly to make some minor moves in that direction. The Shipbuilding Industry Board should be satisfied that there is a real and urgent intention to get on with reorganisation;
108
that the reorganisation is of a kind which will increase the efficiency of the firm; that the order concerned will help, and not hinder, in the necessary reorganisation—for example, in the specialisation of yards—and that it is genuinely needed by the firm concerned. It is certainly not the purpose under Clause 7, which deals with guarantees, to enable shipyards to get orders merely to survive for a little longer, or to build up large order books as accretion for the firm. The Shipbuilding Credit Act 1964 had this effect. The purpose of the scheme is to reinforce the incentive to reorganisation on which the survival of the industry ultimately depends, and we expect the Shipbuilding Industry Board to apply those criteria pretty strictly before making its recommendations to the Minister.
It was suggested during the Committee stage that by including criteria of this kind the Government were departing from the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. I do not think the noble Lord used that argument to-day, and in fact that is not so. It is true that the scope of the guarantee scheme included in the Bill is a good deal wider than the limited credit scheme proposed by the Geddes Committee. But in paragraph 556 of their Report the Committee recommended that credit should be given only in cases where the orders concerned would reinforce the incentive to grouping and reorganisation, and the criteria now included in the Bill are very much in the spirit of the criteria recommended by the Committee.
May I now turn to the very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, which is of course fundamental to the success of this industry? It is because of the failure of previous, more limited, efforts that the Geddes Committee made their strong recommendations and the Government are carrying them out. In Chapter 21 of their Report the Geddes Committee regarded the improvement of industrial relations in the industry as of paramount importance to the success of the reorganisation planned for the industry. The Government fully accept this view and agreed with the spirit of the Amendments put down in the House of Commons, which would have made the giving of guarantees under Clause 7 conditional on the conclusion of formal agreements with the

109
workpeople in the yards concerned to promote higher productivity, to remove obstacles to increased efficiency, and to ensure continuing consultation between management and work people.
As someone who has been for the past ten years, until I became a Minister in the present Government, concerned very largely with industrial relations in the personnel management field, I know what a vital subject this is. But to include a statutory requirement for the conclusion of formal agreements could be unnecessarily rigid. In the last resort, an industry gets the industrial relations which the management has deserved. This may not always be fair, but this is where the responsibility must lie in the first instance. I think it is better to give the Shipbuilding Industry Board discretion to take this aspect of reorganisation into account with all the others, and not to set up—and the noble Lord did not advocate it—some rigid statutory requirement.
My right honourable friend said that the purpose and the spirit of the arguments now put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, would be very much in the mind of the Shipbuilding Industry Board as it approached its task. If there were no response on this matter of relations between management and workers it would clearly be a factor—and I want to stress this again—in disinclining the Board to take the view that the proposed reorganisation was likely to be effective. More positively, the Board will be looking for and seeking to encourage in every way possible the considerations which were mentioned in another place, and which have been mentioned again now by the noble Lord.
Since then, my right honourable friend has received from the Chairman of the Shipbuilding Industry Board the following information on the action which the Board proposes to take on this subject. The Board is arranging to ask shipbuilders who apply for their recommendations under Clause 7 to say what arrangements or agreements have been or are being made to promote higher productivity, to remove obstacles, to increase efficiency and to ensure continuing consultations between management and workpeople. The Board also proposes to keep this consideration well in mind, not only in the context of Clause 7 of the Bill but also as one of the most important
110
elements in the implementation of the Geddes Report and in the administration of the other provisions of the Bill.
It will therefore be seen—and I hope this will go some way to satisfy the noble Lord—that in deciding whether or not to recommend financial assistance for any shipbuilding firm the Shipbuilding Industry Board will have very much in mind the removal of obstacles to increased efficiency. So I hope that the noble Lord will have got from the Labour Government what he in fact failed to get from his own Government on an earlier occasion. I think no one should underestimate the importance of this. Of course, as has been made clear, this Bill is producing incentives, but these must work in order to enable people to benefit from them.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said something about the retraining of workers, and here again I think I can satisfy him to a small extent. He asked whether loans could be made available to a shipbuilding firm for retraining workers of another firm, and he also referred to the meaning of the word "workers". He did not raise the latter point to-day, however, so perhaps we can leave it for further argument by lawyers. But on the first point, it is true that a shipbuilding firm will not be able to qualify for a loan in respect of its activities in retraining the workers of another shipbuilding firm. On the other hand, a firm which, as a result of its reorganisation, wishes to have some of its workers retrained, will not be debarred from seeking a loan for this purpose solely because the training will be done not on its own premises but elsewhere; for example, in a training centre—perhaps one already existing under the Industrial Training Act, but with the special purposes of this Bill in mind—run by another shipbuilding firm, or possibly an institution.
In such circumstances, the firm with the training centre would presumably (as, again, it might do under the Industrial Training Act passed by the previous Government) make a charge for providing those facilities, and the firm whose employees were being retrained could seek a loan to cover that expense. I hope the noble Lord will agree that perhaps this is the appropriate method in all the circumstances. It would be inappropriate, and rather difficult, for a firm to take on a loan in order to provide facilities which

111
would benefit another shipbuilding firm. Indeed, it might be very reluctant to do so. The obligations relating to that loan—the payment of interest, and so on—should clearly rest on the firm which is to benefit. There is also one further point. Any training centre which a shipbuilding firm runs is unlikely to be devoted solely to retraining workers in new skills. It is more likely to be a general training centre, and retraining will be only a part of its activities—and this, of course, raises the wider question of the Industrial Training Act.
My Lords, I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord, as I fear that I still shall not be able to satisfy him on his suspicions about the powers of the Board to act in a less than impartial way in regard to those firms in which investments have been made. We discussed this matter very fully, and the noble Lord clearly did not want to go into it again. I can only repeat my assurances that, while I believe that the argument in favour of this proposal is unanswerable, and is perfectly fair and just, I should not have regarded it as a major part of the Bill; and I certainly have no anxieties that partiality will be shown. The fact that the noble Lord himself is suspicious indicates, of course, the danger that other people in the industry will be suspicious, but I can only repeat my assurances and my confidence in the Shipbuilding Industry Board.
My Lords, with the passing of the Bill the way will be open, in a very few days indeed, for the establishment on a statutory basis of the Shipbuilding Industry Board and for the provision of finance to the industry. As the noble Lord said (and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, also gave figures), the industry is passing through a very difficult and very dangerous period, and much of the earlier optimism aroused when the Geddes Report was first published has evaporated—and this is understandable. The orders which have been coming in have been very low; and the financial position and profitability of many of the firms are dangerously difficult. But this Bill provides the legislative powers to enable the programme outlined in the Geddes Report to be carried out. In certain respects—for instance, in the matter of loans—it
112
goes very much further in giving large-scale first aid.
The need is urgent, and we cannot stress this urgency too much. Already the industry has taken a number of important steps; and the Shipbuilding Industry Board, as your Lordships know, is already, even in its pre-statutory form, taking a very active part. There have been the studies on new groupings on the Wear and the Upper Clyde; and there has been the proposal for the merger of the four shipbuilding firms on the Tyne. But, of course, grouping is not an end in itself. There is the need for reorganisation in men and equipment; but it is essential—and I am quite certain that everybody who has studied the industry, especially the Shipbuilding Industry Board, regards this as a necessity—that, if reorganisation is to be successful, there should be grouping. The Government therefore welcome the recent moves.
Here again, in my final words I should like to emphasise the importance of what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has said. Indeed, this was in the notes of my speech even before I knew that the noble Lord was going to raise this matter. There is this vital need to improve the climate of industrial relations; and I may say that, despite some much-publicised disputes in the industry, there seems good reason to believe that there has been some improvement in the climate. The effects of the series of local productivity agreements early last year are working through, and procedure agreements dealing with the difficult problem of demarcation have been reached with the unions in the industry.
The Geddes Report has provided an outline for action; but of course the need is urgent. The urgency with which your Lordships have dealt with this Bill will, I hope, be communicated to those doubters in the industry who still do not appreciate that a vital national interest and their own livelihoods are at stake. Therefore, on behalf of your Lordships I should like to extend good wishes to the shipbuilding industry with, if I may say so, a firm instruction now to "get on with it." I am certain that your Lordships would also wish to send good wishes to the members of the Shipbuilding Industry Board, Sir William Swallow, Mr. Tony Hepper and Mr. Gormley, who have taken on a task of

113
the greatest importance which I know is already making greater demands than they anticipated. I am grateful to your Lordships that this Bill is now being passed into law. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed.

TOKYO CONVENTION BILL
4.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I have taken very much to heart what has been said earlier—that your Lordships have a great deal of business to get through to-day—and I believe I should be in accord with the spirit of the House in feeling that your Lordships would not want to spend an undue amount of time on this modest and uncontroversial measure. As I think noble Lords know, it was introduced in another place by a Private Member with Government support, and passed there without opposition and with only one or two minor Amendments. I hope it may be treated in a similar way by this House. As it is perhaps somewhat technical and concentrated, I think I ought to give a short explanation of what it sets out to do, and I shall do so as briefly as possible.
It is entitled the "Tokyo Convention Bill" in its Short Title, and its purpose is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Tokyo Convention, the full description of which is set out in the Long Title to the Bill. This is not a piece of legislation which schedules an International Convention to the Bill and brings it into English law; instead, it sets out simply to change English law, domestic law, to the extent necessary to enable it to be applied here. That explains the form the Bill has taken.
The Tokyo Convention was signed in 1963 by the United Kingdom and by 25 other States and it has been ratified by six countries up to the present time. It deals briefly with three main purposes. First, it sets out to clarify the legal position as regards crimes committed on aircraft, and also in relation to acts taking place in an aircraft which are liable to jeopardise the safety of the aircraft and of those on board. Secondly,
114
it deals with the position of the commander and crew of an aircraft. They, of course, are not lawyers; they may have to deal with difficult and tricky situations and their position is quite different from that of the captain of a ship who has plenty of time in which to consider what he is to do and also has good, practical facilities for holding under restraint people who have committed crimes or who are a danger to the ship. That is not so in relation to aircraft.
Thirdly, the Bill sets out to deal with what is to happen on the ground when an aircraft lands with somebody on board who has committed an offence. Then it is necessary to reconcile a number of conflicting requirements, of traffic and airline operation. One does not wish to hold up an aircraft longer than is necessary; one wants to deal with the enforcement of the law so that crime may not go unpunished; one has to deal with immigration control; and, most of all, one has to take care that the rights of individuals are safeguarded and that they are not kept under restraint for longer than is necessary. Further, your Lordships will bear in mind that the legislation has to deal, first, with British aircraft outside the United Kingdom and, second, with the counterpart, foreign aircraft in the United Kingdom, whether they are flying over the United Kingdom air-space or whether they have landed on United Kingdom territory.
That is the general scheme of the Bill. If I now may briefly go through the clauses your Lordships will, I hope, see how it carries out its objectives. Clause 1 is the clause which deals with the application of the criminal law to persons committing crimes. It follows the Canadian and Australian legislation in applying United Kingdom criminal law to British aircraft. The expression used is "British-controlled aircraft"; which your Lordships will find defined later and which I will explain. That gets over a difficulty which was experienced several years ago when it was found impossible to convict of an offence under the Dangerous Drugs Act of this country a person who was carrying drugs in a United Kingdom aircraft but outside the territorial limits of the United Kingdom. In such a case now, British law would be applied and it would be dealt with as a crime under British law.

115
Your Lordships will see in subsection (2) of Clause 1 that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales is required to any prosecution. The reason for that is that without some such safeguard there might be a danger of foreigners flying in British aircraft being liable to prosecution for some minor offence under British law of which the foreigner in question was entirely ignorant. Therefore, it was thought better to give an overriding right to the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether it is appropriate to prosecute in such a case.
Clause 2 deals with the subject of extradition. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, the existing Statute as to extradition is the Extradition Act 1870 which dates from a time when flight was in a very experimental stage or else was confined to balloons. Therefore, at that time those who drafted the extradition legislation were not thinking of what would happen if a crime were committed in an aircraft. What this clause does is to apply Article 16 of the Tokyo Convention; that is to say, for the purpose of extradition a crime is treated as having been committed in the State of registry of the aircraft as well as in the State over which the aircraft is flying. For example, a crime committed on a Norwegian aircraft which is flying over France is treated as having been committed both in Norway and in France, and therefore, according to what the extradition Treaty says, both Norway and France (or either Norway or France) are entitled to put into operation the extradition machinery if the offender ends up in the United Kingdom.
Clause 3 is perhaps the central clause in the Bill. It should be a very useful and practical clause in relation to pilots and crews of aircraft, in that it gives them protection, tells them what they can do and defines their duties and responsibilities in what it is hoped is a practical manner. It begins by dealing with the commander of the aircraft, which again is defined later on. The powers it gives him are probably, as regards our law, mainly coincident with the Common Law. Your Lordships will see in subsection (2) that his powers arise when the aircraft is in flight—and there is a special definition of what is "in flight" later on in Clause 7.
116
It means from the time when the doors have been shut until the time the doors are open again. In that period when the doors are shut on everybody and until they are opened again the commander is responsible for what goes on on board. But once the doors are opened or before they are shut the responsibility is that of the police authorities on the ground. Your Lordships will notice also that this subsection, and indeed the provisions relating to commanders, apply to the commanders of any aircraft and not only British aircraft, because it is obviously right that commanders of foreign aircraft in British territory should have their powers defined in the same way.
Subsection (2) of the clause contains one expression which may strike your Lordships as a little odd. In the first line of page 3 it uses the expression, "a serious offence." That expression is taken from the Convention itself. When it was under discussion we in the United Kingdom delegation, of which I formed part, objected to it as vague and uncertain, but it was agreed to. Would your Lordships look at the context in which it appears:
"…in the opinion of the commander is a serious offence…".
Since there is a subjective test, it is thought that it will not create difficulty in practice, although it does lead to difficulty of definition.
Subsection (3) deals with the rights and duties of the crew of an aircraft, and also the passengers on board, in the way of the Common Law; that is to say, it treats them as ordinary citizens who are obliged to lend their assistance, and entitled to lend their assistance, to deal with an offender or a criminal. One may perhaps remark there that this did not find favour with the Eastern bloc, which is not in favour of ordinary citizens having rights in relation to crime, and it may be that that will be an obstacle to the countries of the Eastern bloc when they consider whether they should ratify the Convention or not.
Subsection (4) deals with the period during which restraint may be continued over a person subject to restraint. Subsection (5) says what the commander of an aircraft may do with a person who has either committed a crime or a dangerous act on board. Broadly, under

117
paragraph (a), if it is a case of a threat to safety, ne simply disembarks the person and leaves him to continue his journey in some other way. Under paragraph (b), if the person is an offender, the commander delivers him, or may deliver him, to the appropriate authorities to deal with under the criminal laws.
Then, under subsection (6), a duty is imposed on the commander of an aircraft to report the intention to deliver a person, and also the disembarkation of a person, to appropriate authorities, under a penalty (which appears in lines 6 to 7 on page 5) of £100. The amount of that penalty has been approved by the Home Office in this country. The subparagraphs (ii) in each case, under paragraphs (a) and (b), were added in another place, and it may be appropriate to consider whether in line 32 on page 4 the letter "r" should not be added to the end of the word "office". That is some improvement which we might make at a later stage. So far as the duty to report is concerned, in practice it will be dealt with, I understand, in this way: that if this Bill becomes law, an instruction in general terms will be issued to commanders of aircraft to give notice by radio as soon as possible to air traffic control that they intend to deliver a suspected offender. That will introduce a routine applicable to anybody who flies and will give a means by which the presence of the suspected offender, and the intention to deliver him, may be established.
Clause 4 deals with piracy. This is outside the Tokyo Convention and, as your Lordships will see, brings in the Geneva Convention on the High Seas of 1958. The position about piracy is that it is an international crime to which International Law applies, but the content of it is not absolutely certain. For that reason the Geneva Convention on the High Seas of 1958, to which this country is a party, provided an internationally agreed definition of piracy, the relevant Articles of which your Lordships will find set out in the Schedule. Of course, piracy was in existence long before flight was known, but these Articles deal, as may be seen, with piracy by aircraft against ships and also by aircraft against aircraft, about which, apart from that Convention, there might be some uncertainty as to the law. So what Clause
118
4 does is make the three Articles of the Geneva Convention part of the English law and so put the position of these mixed piracies, sea-air and air-air, beyond any doubt.
Clauses 5 and 6 deal with certain ancillary matters in a way which I do not think calls for detailed comment. Clause 5 deals with the provision of the evidence in the case of crimes committed in relation to aircraft in the ordinary way, and Clause 6 deals with the proof of certain matters. In Clause 6(1)(a) what is dealt with is a kind of document which, apart from this provision, would require the unnecessary attendance of an official; for example, the Registrar of Aircraft in order to prove that an aircraft is registered in the United Kingdom, or a certificate of airworthiness which is validated by the Air Registration Board. It avoids the necessity of officials from the relevant authorities having to attend in court each time to prove the content of the necessary document. Under paragraph (b) what is dealt with is the Stationery Office publication known as the United Kingdom Air Pilot, which deals with a number of technical matters such as radio wavelengths. Subsection (2) relates mainly to such matters as the tape recordings of radio conversations which are taken in connection with air traffic control. I suggest that those are technical matters which do not raise any issue of principle.
Clause 7 introduces a number of definitions, and perhaps I may briefly refer to one or two of them. First of all, British-controlled aircraft, which, as I told your Lordships, is a matter dealt with in Clause 1, includes both British registered aircraft and what are known as inter-changed aircraft—that is to say, foreign registered aircraft chartered on demise charter to British operators. As those would be operated by British commanders with British crews, it is obviously appropriate that British law—British criminal law, if the occasion arose—should apply. Clause 7(4) deals with the possibility that a number of small States with no very great resources may establish joint air transport operations. Perhaps six or seven African States might think it a good idea to pool their operations and acquire one large Boeing between them, and operate it as what is called a joint air transport organisation. If that took place, some

119
machinery would obviously be necessary to bring such aircraft within the Convention, and what is said is that it is to be treated as registered in one specified Convention country. Lastly, subsection (5) says that the costs of any prosecution under this Bill will be met out of Exchequer funds rather than fall on local funds. This is what happens in Admiralty cases; it applies the same procedure.
My Lords, I have one other remark. I can claim no responsibility for the drafting of this Bill—it is much too good for me. As your Lordships will have appreciated, it has received expert drafting. Though no doubt we may find small matters to improve as we proceed to a detailed consideration, your Lordships may be assured that it has been given expert attention and is technically in accordance with the usual standard of legislation presented to this House. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Wilberforce.)
4.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we must be greatly beholden to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for introducing this very useful Bill into your Lordships' House, and I am sure we should all like to congratulate him on the lucid way in which he has explained it. In supporting the noble and learned Lord I might perhaps declare an indirect interest, in that for the past 15 years I have averaged some 25,000 miles of flying every year and am, consequently, most anxious, to put it mildly, that crime and offences on board aircraft—or piracy in the air—should be kept to a minimum or, preferably, prevented altogether.
Many of us have probably been aboard an aircraft when certain of the passengers have been disorderly as a result of drink. I have thought that if only alcohol had made them pass out altogether, or at least go to sleep, the situation would not have been so fraught with tenseness and even danger. Drink affects people differently. Some become argumentative, some unruly, and some even go berserk, making the position of the steward or air hostess quite intolerable. It is difficult to know what to do with them other than lock them up in the lavatory of the aircraft. I am
120
not quite clear how this could be done, since most lavatories in aircraft lock only on the inside, but I suppose that the door could be secured in some other manner. Certainly there are cases where the aircraft commander needs power to act immediately to deal with unruly passengers, and I am sure that it is right that every contracting State should be able to establish jurisdiction over offences committed in its own aircraft, even if the offender is of another nationality and the aircraft is flying from one country to another, neither of which is its country of registration or, as the noble and learned Lord said, its country of operation. The Bill certainly meets these points and also arranges for the furnishing of evidence in writing, if necessary, by the nationals of other countries. All this seems reasonably satisfactory.
There is one point I should like to make about the delay in ratifying this Convention. We signed it in Tokyo in 1963, and I wonder why it has taken three to four years to draft this Bill and bring it before Parliament. I am told that so far only six countries have ratified. I think that we should set a good example on these matters and ratify this Convention as soon as we can. I am told that there is a number of international conventions concluded since the war which we have signed but not yet ratified. I wonder how many there are? I am not asking the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to give me an answer this afternoon. I propose to put down a Question for Written Answer, and I should be grateful if the Government would let us have a list of the conventions concluded since the War, with perhaps an asterisk against those which we have signed but not yet ratified.
There is one final point I should like to make. Would there not be some advantage in a Bill of this kind coming before your Lordships' House first? Would not this speed it up and make for less congestion of business in your Lordships' House towards the end of the Session? This is a point which my noble Leader has made on more than one occasion. One reason why such a procedure would be appropriate on this occasion is that we have with us the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who actually led our delegation in Tokyo. I know how distinguished and able a leader he was. Ably

121
as the Bill was introduced in another place by the honourable Member who was fortunate in the ballot, might it not have been an advantage for Members there to have been able to read what the noble and learned Lord had said about the Bill in your Lordships' House before it came before them? Apart from that, and subject to any Amendments which may be proposed in Committee, I hope that this excellent Bill has a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
4.45 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, I should like to join my congratulations to those of the noble Earl, and also express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for his lucid presentation of this Bill to your Lordships. I think that he was too modest about it, because it is a Bill of great value and considerable importance. Her Majesty's Government welcome it wholeheartedly.
There is no need for me to attempt to go into the details of the Bill, because the noble and learned Lord has put them so clearly. I am sure that the House agrees that we have been extremely lucky to have had such a fine exposition of this Bill. The noble and learned Lord has made it appear simple and straightforward, but those who have taken the trouble to look at it in advance realise that it is of considerable complexity. We should be grateful to the noble and learned Lord not only for having presented the Bill in such an admirable way, but also for the work he has done in the wide field of aviation law and, above all, for his work as leader of the British delegation to the Legal Committee of ICAO in the deliberations which led up to the calling of the Diplomatic Conference in Tokyo in 1963. It was largely due to his efforts and his wisdom that the Tokyo Convention was signed, and very fittingly signed, by the noble and learned Lord himself on behalf of the United Kingdom.
I should like to take this opportunity of going a little further than the Bill itself, and pay a sincere tribute on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the work of the noble and learned Lord in the whole field of international air law during the years since the end of the last war. He has been the leader of our delegation to the Legal Committee of ICAO
122
for many years. All those who have had anything to do with civil aviation have come to appreciate his many and great qualities, his zeal and wisdom, and his tenacity of purpose, an asset of great value in negotiations of this kind. He has made an enormous contribution to the body of international air law, which has resulted in the conclusion of so many of these international conventions. There is still plenty of need for work of this sort, and I sincerely hope that for a long time we may continue to enjoy the benefit of his advice and his services.
If, without running the risk of being discourteous, I may make one minor suggestion to the noble and learned Lord, I would say this. He referred to the African countries that might decide to join together to form an air line—an admirable suggestion which I hope many countries, not only African, will take up—and he went on to suggest that they might decide to buy a Boeing. I hope that they will buy a VC 10 instead.
Your Lordships will appreciate that this Convention does not come into operation until 90 days after 12 ratifications have been deposited. The noble Earl referred to the delay that has taken place. He understands well the reasons why there has been some delay before it has been possible to get round to this. But, as he himself said, at present only six countries have ratified. So we are well up on the list. The noble and learned Lord mentioned that there were 25 countries other than ourselves who had signed. According to the list that I have here, there are in all 27 countries other than ourselves, making a total of 28. So out of the 28, we, I hope, shall be the seventh, six being ahead of us. Therefore our record is not too bad. But I agree with the noble Earl that the sooner we can do these things the better. If this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will do very speedily, the Government will be able to ratify this Convention, though there may be some slight delay after that because of the need to apply the Convention to overseas territories. I can assure your Lordships that the Government intend to ratify the Convention as soon as possible.
But the usefulness of this Bill does not depend solely on the Convention itself being in operation. We intend to bring the parts of the Bill into effect as soon

123
as practicable after it becomes law. An order will be made bringing most of the Bill into force immediately, but some of the provisions, in particular subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 3, relating to the delivery and disembarkation of offenders and others, will not be brought into force until the necessary arrangements have been made by those responsible for police and immigration matters. I do not think there should be any substantial delay because of this.
Finally, let me repeat my sincere thanks to the noble and learned Lord, not only for his great work over this whole field, but also, in particular at this stage, for introducing this Bill in such an admirable manner.
4.53 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE: My Lords, happily there is nothing to reply to. I should only like to express my deep gratitude for the support which has been given to this Bill, and particularly for the way in which the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench has defined the attitude of the Government and of himself. If one is thinking of the preparatory work which has been done on this Convention and other matters, one should certainly not omit to recognise the magnificent work done by the lawyers in the noble Lord's own Department, now the Board of Trade, and formerly the Ministry of Aviation, who have supplied all the sinews of war and really done all the technical work without which it would have been quite impossible for either the Convention to be signed or for this Bill to be presented. There is nothing more for me to say, except to thank both sides for the support they have given.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS BILL
4.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is quite a small Bill, but one that is much needed. It covers one important aspect of the problem of greater safety in the use of pesticides. The origin of the Bill is due to the interest displayed by Alderman Joyce Butler in another place, and the subsequent progress of this Bill and the support that has been given by the Government is a tribute to her effort and persistence.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make regulations requiring that pesticide products sold for use on farms or in gardens and containing specific active ingredients shall be labelled with the name of that active ingredient, and that there shall be prescribed a mark, symbol or colour to show how toxic it is to humans or other forms of life. The acceptance of these measures would without doubt enable the user to recognise much more clearly and rapidly than he can to-day what is the active ingredient, and to select the right chemical for his particular use and purpose. In addition, in the event of an accident, which could flow from the indiscriminate or over-use of the pesticide, such name will enable anyone coping with the situation to see what has caused the trouble and to use the appropriate antidote. A further advantage of this Bill is that the distinguishing mark or colour will give a clear warning that the product is in some degree toxic and needs careful handling.
The individual substances that will be the subject of this legislation will be scheduled in the regulations. The Bill itself provides for consultations by the Minister with the interested organisations before the regulations are made. It is as well to give some consideration to the existing labelling requirements. Apart from the Poison Rules made under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, which require the word "poison" to appear on labels of products containing poisons, there are no laws in this country requiring

125
a symbol indicating the hazard to appear on labels of farm and garden chemicals. It is perfectly true that at the present time nearly all manufacturers and suppliers of these chemicals adhere to a voluntary pesticides safety precautions scheme, and put the name of the active ingredient on the label of their products. But there are one or two firms who do not take part in this scheme, and the Bill will have the advantage of making all firms concerned subject to the same labelling requirements. And I might mention at this point that these proposals are welcomed by the rest of the trade who are adhering to the proposals under the voluntary scheme.
With regard to future Government action concerning the control of pesticides, your Lordships may be aware that at the request of the Government an Advisory Committee on Pesticides recently reviewed the safety arrangements for use of poisonous substances in agriculture and home gardens. The report, published in January, 1967, recommended that the present voluntary scheme be replaced by a compulsory licensing scheme for all pesticide products used in agriculture and home gardens. The Committee recommended also that labelling be controlled either by approving such specific label as part of the licence or by giving the Minister general powers. The Government, before deciding what action to take, have invited organisations to comment on the recommendations. It is true that the Bill does not cover all the proposals that may emerge from such discussions, but it certainly covers, as I said originally, one exceedingly important aspect of this overall problem of dealing with pesticides. As everyone knows, with the increasing and perhaps necessary use of pesticides it becomes increasingly imperative that steps such as those outlined in this very useful Bill should be accepted, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Peddie.)
5.0 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, for introducing this Bill and for explaining it in such a lucid fashion. It is, as he said, a simple and a small Bill, and indeed it is only an enabling Bill. But
126
although it is small in size and extent, it is, nevertheless, important in its effect, because it will regularise and enforce the labelling and the categorising by colour or symbol of spray chemicals which are used, of course, by farmers, horticulturists and domestic gardeners.
The spray chemical industry has increased in size and in importance immensely over the past ten years. Sprays have become more scientific, more precise, and more specific—and sometimes more deadly. It is surprising that even now, as the noble Lord has pointed out, there is only a voluntary scheme for their, as it were, policing. I think the time will come when we shall have to be very much more vigorous in the control of these herbicides and pesticides. Ten years ago it was customary for farmers to purchase their herbicides, probably in bulk, in the autumn, and there would be what might be described as broad spectrum herbicides, which covered most weeds. But now it is necessary to have almost a technocrat who goes into each field and says, "On this field you need one substance, and on another, another substance"; and a spray bill may contain nine or ten different herbicides alone. The average farmer takes the advice of the technocrat and does what he is told, but has not the slightest idea what the ingredients are, nor of the hazards or dangers. This Bill will make it necessary for the product to be labelled with the ingredients, and also to be labelled, as the noble Lord said, with a colour or symbol.
I happened to be glancing through an agricultural paper only to-day, and I saw a large advertisement inviting the readers thereof to use a weed killer called "'Buctril' M". This very correctly said what the contents of this spray were, and the reader was informed that it consisted of bromoxynil octanoate and M.C.P.A. iso-octyl esters. That is, of course, extremely informative, but I would suggest that this information is really limited to only the manufacturers of bromoxynil octanoate and M.C.P.A. iso-octyl esters, or their equivalent. To the average farmer or horticulturist this would mean nothing. But under this system, as I see it, and as the noble Lord has explained, these sprays will come under a variety of different colours as well, to denote their sverity. One looks forward to the day

127
when one can buy one's sprays in cans, some possibly with a yellow label, denoting "quite harmless and indeed almost drinkable"; another possibly with a blue label indicating that it is all right on your outside but not on your inside; another possibly with a green label suggesting that this product is "getting a bit too hot to handle'; and another with a red label saying, to all intents and purposes, "Watch out. This is lethal". At least in this way the average user will have some idea of the danger, or indeed the safety, of the materials he is using.
I welcome this Bill for a number of reasons, and I welcome a number of particular provisions in it. The fact that it cannot come into operation for 15 months after it has been made law should, I think, give time enough for the Government to consult with the interested parties so that any arrangements that are made should have the agreement of the interested parties. I also welcome the fact that it is mandatory upon the Government to consult with them. I think this is most important and that it is highly desirable. I also like, if I may say so, the use of the word "hazard" in the Bill, because I think it is highly explicit. So often when talking about chemicals one refers to the toxicity of the chemical. Of course, the degree of toxicity of the chemical depends upon its concentration. The hazard is the danger to humans or animals attendant upon the degree of toxicity in the chemicals contained in the pesticide or herbicide. That, I feel, is very much more important and, after all, it is hazard to life with which we are concerned.
I would hope that in the period of 15 months in which there will be time for consultation the Government will take advantage of consulting not only with people in Europe, but also possibly people in the United Nations, who I believe have been doing a lot of work on the toxicity of chemicals, to see whether some degree of similarity can be obtained so that countries throughout the world, and certainly throughout Europe, may use the same colours to denote or symbolise the degree of severity of the chemicals which are used.
My Lords, this is a simple Bill and it should be simple to put into operation. I would hope that, because it is an
128
enabling Bill, the Government will not allow it to drop, but will take advantage of the powers that they have been given by this Bill to see that chemicals are labelled, and labelled in the manner suggested. In some ways I should like to see the Bill go a little further, because I think the time will come when these chemicals will have to be licensed, albeit by a simple licensing system. As time progresses and chemicals become more virulent and more potent the need for licensing will, I think, come about. But at least this is a start, and I welcome this Bill and hope it will pass your Lordships' House and receive your Lordships' agreement.
5.8 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, as one who has a cupboardful of garden poisons, I welcome this Bill. But I do not think that making the orders is going to be half as easy as noble Lords who have just spoken seem to think, because all these substances are liable to be poisonous to a degree, and the problem is to try to indicate what degree of poison they are. Something else one must remember is that different persons will have a different toxicity or allergy factor. Some of these substances, of course, it would be poisonous to get on the skin; some poisonous if one swallowed them; some if one breathed them—or all three. Then there is the question of quantity, which my noble friend has just mentioned.
What one really wants is some instruction on these chemicals as to the precautions the normal person ought to take when using them; in other words: "Don't use this without wearing a mask", or "Always use rubber gloves", or perhaps with some dangerous ones, "Use oil skins, mask and gloves"; or, alternatively, "Not toxic if breathed for a small time in small quantities". Otherwise, I am afraid the directions likely to be put on these chemicals will really be of not much use to anybody.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not be too carried away in relying on colour only, because in gardeners there is an undisclosed but possibly large number who are colour blind. I think there should be something like a symbol and perhaps a potency scale. I know of an American

129
ship where they were inflicted with the names of French cheeses, so they graduated their cheeses on the Beaufort scale on the smell, and a Force 8 cheese really was something!
5.11 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord was going to make some comments on the remark made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he talked about labelling those products which were drinkable and those which were not, and was going to suggest that whatever happened there should not be a black label which was defined as being undrinkable, which might cause trouble in certain parts of this country.
I will not detain your Lordships long, but that does not mean that I regard this as an unimportant Bill; I think it is a valuable and useful Bill. The Government are certainly glad to accept it, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. It is perfectly true, as my noble friend said, that the great majority of farm and garden chemicals are at the moment adequately labelled, but for all that there is a minority which do not conform to this practice, and there is much to be said for an enabling power which will enable the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to deal with cases which do not come up to the accepted standards.
As your Lordships know, there is at the present time an advisory committee on insecticides and other toxic chemicals which the Government have set up to advise on many matters. It was not so long ago that it reviewed the present safety arrangements for the use of all types of poisonous substances in agriculture and food storage, and in fact its report was published at the beginning of this year. The various interested organisations have been given until next month to offer their comments on the publication of this report, and naturally any action that may be taken will have to be deferred until these comments have been considered. But as I have said, the provisions in this enabling Bill are worth while and will be of considerable help to the Government in any future action which may be considered. Therefore I should like to thank my noble friend for introducing this Bill and once again express the hope that it will receive its Second Reading.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I thank your Lordships for the manner in which you have received the Bill. I particularly appreciate the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, based, as I know they are, upon practical experience in agriculture. He has given the House a number of indications of the practical advantage of the provisions of this Bill. Within the 15 months which will be available for consultation, I am sure that all the interests which are represented will be able to convey their particular point of view, and possibly even add to the value of the Bill.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that it is not easy to deal with the directions concerning the use of such things as pesticides and the like. There is a need for full direction, and I think that is recognised by the promoters of the Bill and by the appropriate Ministers. The fact that this is not an easy matter is no reason why we should not proceed with it, and I think the Minister has given the indication of the need for such action. Indeed, even now the manufacturers I have mentioned, and who are members of the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme, do not classify pesticides either by colour or symbol on the label, and nor do the Government require them so to do under the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme. Therefore the proposal that is being made is a substantial step forward, even beyond those conditions laid down by the more advanced manufacturers and suppliers of pesticides.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, that there are difficulties attendant upon colour blindness, but that is no reason why we should not use colour on occasions. After all, those who are colour blind may be able to read. The combination of symbol and colour is an attempt to deal with all parties regardless of their possible afflictions. The question of colour is, of course, important and significant. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, indicated, it offers enormous opportunities for giving better warning in dealing with pesticides, but attendant upon this there is the difficulty in regard to linking up with European interests. Therefore the Government, and whoever may be responsible, will have a good deal of thinking and consultation to do before it is possible to proceed with the actual identification of the colour to be

131
used. I repeat that we are not relying solely on colour, but are relying also on symbol and detailed explanation.
I think I have covered the points which have been raised, but I should like to repeat the words with which I opened and to thank noble Lords for their support. This is a small Bill, but one that win, I think, make a useful, indeed a considerable, contribution to greater safety in the use of pesticides.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL
5.19 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We have already had quite a "mixed bag" of Bills to consider and approve this afternoon, with more to follow. For that reason I propose to be as brief as possible in moving the Second Reading. This Bill has already been passed and approved in another place with more speed than usual. The Second Reading occupied 80 minutes of Members' time, with eight speeches; the Committee stage occupied 21 minutes, and the Third Reading exactly five minutes. Perhaps we shall be able even to eclipse that record. I hope so.
The Bill is, I believe, acceptable to the Government. Amendments relating to Scotland have been adopted. In dealing, as it does, with agricultural and horticultural problems which need improvement, and so promoting the prosperity and welfare of those engaged in those industries, I feel that it will meet with the approval also of noble Lords opposite. This Bill was introduced and carried through the other House by the honourable Member for King's Lynn, and supported by three honourable Members representing Norfolk constituencies. My interest in agriculture, King's Lynn and Norfolk are no doubt well known to most of your Lordships and therefore it may be appropriate that I should be in the position of introducing this Bill this afternoon. I must say, having passed my four score
132
years, that it is a unique experience for me to pilot a Bill through either House of Parliament, and as this is, in a way, a maiden speech on a particular subject and object, I am sure that I shall receive the usual tolerance from your Lordships. My brevity will commend me.
Noble Lords will see the purpose of the Bill set out in a fairly explicit Explanatory Memorandum. It is to remove from industrial and provident societies certain limitations which at present prevent them from raising capital by creating a floating charge on their movable assets. The floating charge would not relate to or be confined to specific items, but would be on whatever assets or class of assets might be owned by the society at that particular time—and transport comes to mind as a suitable asset. Such assets can then be disposed of or replaced according to circumstances, and the society need not register them as a bill of sale under the somewhat old Bills of Sale Acts of 1878 and 1882. Under the existing legislation the society would have to conform accordingly to its provisions, whereas commercial companies have the advantage that registration under the Companies Act 1948 exempts them from the Bills of Sale Acts.
Such companies thus gain preferential treatment in the raising of money for the carrying on of their businesses which is denied to industrial and provident societies. This Bill, if and when it becomes law, will put this defect and disadvantage right and open up the means whereby, more particularly, agricultural and horticultural societies can raise capital to extend their business operations and thereby benefit their members.
The ability to create floating charges covered by the Bill would appear to me to make the societies more credit-worthy, as well as increase their financial strength and means, and thus bringing more capital into the twin rural industries which at present are suffering adversely from its insufficiency. It is obvious that, whether entry into the Common Market is obtained or not, developments in farming and horticulture must be encouraged by the introduction of fresh capital. New methods and ideas will need such additional capital to make them beneficial and of practical day-to-day use.
This Bill is a short one and is divided into three Parts, with a Schedule at the

133
end. I am glad to say that it is easy to read and understand. Part I deals with the registration procedure to be carried out by the registered society creating a fixed or floating charge upon its assets and by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies in recording and filing particulars of that charge. Detailed matters, such as the payment of fees, inspection and management and the registrar's files are covered. Nothing, however, in this Part is to apply to a debenture registered in favour of a bank under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928.
Part II deals entirely with Scottish affairs and brings these more or less into line with those set out in Part I for England and Wales. Certain Amendments were made to this Part of the Bill on the Committee stage in another place, and these were acceptable to the Government and the promoter of the Bill. They are embodied in the Bill which is now before your Lordships. Part III covers a few general matters and states that the Bill, as an Act, will come into operation on the expiration of the period of two months after it has been passed. I hope that your Lordships will make that date an early one. By doing so, you will have the satisfaction of assisting an event of benefit and encouragement to agricultural and other co-operative societies. I believe that we are destined to see many extensions of co-operation and amalgamation of businesses and companies during the lifetime of the rising generation, and it is well to be prepared. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Wise.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that this is the first Bill that he has piloted at any time through either House of Parliament. It is said in the proverb that, "Wise men learn from the experience of others", and the noble Lord, if he has not had the experience himself, has certainly learned from the experience of others and has introduced this Bill very well, if I may be allowed to say so.
This is a Bill which we from this side of the House welcome very much. One of the puzzling things is to know why this has never been done before; why, over all these years, industrial and provident soceties have not been able to raise floating charges. In Scotland, of course,
134
it is only relatively recently—since 1961—that companies have been able to do this. It is a good thing that this power should now be extended to industrial and provident societies. It is, of course, the growth of agricultural and horticultural societies that has made this necessary. Apparently it was not so necessary before, but it certainly is necessary now, for the very good reason that many agricultural co-operative societies are very short of capital. They have to rely almost entirely, or at any rate largely, on the subscriptions of their members for their capital to supply their fixed assets, and they have a considerable amount of floating assets in relation to their strength. One of the best ways in which they can get further finance is to create charges on those floating assets.
There is not a great deal that I wish to say on this subject. We have a good deal more business to do, and I do not want to detain the House for any length of time. It seems to me clear that this is a desirable Bill, and indeed a necessary one. I understand that it was stated in another place, and not denied, that in 1965 the turnover of the agricultural co-operatives amounted to something like £300 million, distributed among some 500 co-operative movements. There is no doubt that the Central Council for Co-operation in Agriculture and Horticulture will encourage and support the growth of co-operative societies. This is a desirable development, inasmuch as one wants to see strong co-operative societies able to hold their own with both suppliers, on the one hand, and purchasers from them, on the other. For these reasons, I would simply congratulate the noble Lord on introducing this Bill, wish it the speedy progress he hopes for it, and pledge our full support for it.
5.30 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that wise men learn from the experience of others. Here in this House I hope that we learn from wise men. Of course, my noble friend has been "Wise" for longer than any of us—for eighty years at least—and it is good to have the benefit of his wisdom. He said that in another place it took 80 minutes and eight speakers to deal adequately with this Bill on Second Reading. I think that with three speakers we can deal as adequately with it in

135
rather less than a quarter of that time. If that is so, it is not in any way because we are not interested in the Bill or because we think it is unimportant—just the reverse. It is due largely to the admirable way in which my noble friend has introduced the Bill. He has told us exactly what it is about and why, and none of us can quarrel with it.
It is clearly important that co-operative societies of the type that he has mentioned should be in a position to raise additional capital. We all need additional capital, whatever our occupations may be, and certainly the agricultural industry as such is greatly in need. With the development of mechanised and intensive types of agriculture, it is greatly in need of new sources of finance; and not only will the agricultural co-operative societies, in particular, themselves benefit if they are able to get this extra finance, but the whole agricultural community will benefit also. Your Lordships will remember that the recent Agriculture Act which we discussed not long ago, and which has now become law, provided for further encouragement to agricultural and horticultural co-operation. That was a quite deliberate part of the 1967 Agriculture Act, because we believe that as one of the prongs of our attack on this agricultural problem there must be a greater degree of co-operation to assist, in particular, the smaller farmers and market gardeners.
This Bill which my noble friend is introducing is complementary to that particular aspect of the Government's agricultural policy. As my noble friend modestly said, it is a small Bill; but it is a most important one, and I believe that in the years to come many people throughout the whole of the agricultural community, and not only in Norfolk, will thank the noble Lord and his friends who have initiated this Bill and who will, before long I hope, have steered it successfully on to the Statute Book. I thank my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I certainly wish the Bill a speedy passage.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I rise for but a moment to thank the two noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Bill. So far as my information goes, the promoter of the Bill is at the moment in the United States. I am certain that
136
when he hears how your Lordships have dealt so efficiently and speedily with the Bill he will be as pleased as I am.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LLANGOLLEN INTERNATIONAL MUSICAL EISTEDDFOD BILL
5.34 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a great pleasure and privilege to me to commend this Bill, with which, as your Lordships may know, I have a near degree of family relationship. It was my brother who sponsored the Bill in another place. I am proud of that connection, and I wish that brotherly love should continue. As a Welshman, I am thrilled by what takes place each year in the setting of the picturesque little town of Llangollen, in an extremely beautiful reach of the valley of the River Dee. As one who has his home nearby, I have over the years watched with unbounded admiration the achievement of those who conceive, plan and organise this most remarkable Festival. It will be held next week for the 21st year in succession.
The Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod is truly remarkable—indeed unique. All Britain can take a pride in it, and especially Wales, of whose fabric of life it is now an established and precious part. It is simple and friendly and yet, because of what it is, grand and inspiring as well. Conceived after the last war, it has the aim—here I quote:
"To promote international peace and good will through the medium of fine arts, and in particular, the art of music."
How appropriate it is that Wales, known as "The Land of Song", should seek to promote international peace and goodwill through music! Each July folk dancers and choirs from more than 50 countries come to the little town on the Dee, bringing the colour and the gaiety of many different national costumes. Llangollen itself has a population of only 3,000, but each year it is hoisted to about 180,000 by visitors to the Festival, audiences and spectators and participants,

137
of whom some 10,000 are accommodated in the area. As many as 2,000 come across the seas, from countries in Europe and far beyond.
No one who has fallen under the spell of the Eisteddfod, either by attending or by watching television broadcasts from the Eisteddfod field, would willing see it die. For it to be sustained as it must be sustained, having been established for 21 years, it needs to be assured of adequate financial support. In this sense, but only in this sense, it is a struggle for the organisers to keep the Eisteddfod going. Indeed, it is a great stuggle. Other support is available plentiously.
In recent years, the organisers have incurred significant financial losses. It is difficult for them to carry on unless they can count on a reasonably stable income. Apart from what I may call the commercial income of the Festival, particularly the fees from the television broadcasters, the Eisteddfod gets help from three main sources. These are, donations from private subscribers, a substantial grant from the Arts Council of Wales, and contributions by local authorities. The sponsor of this Bill believes, the Secretary of State for Wales believes, and I believe, that the contribution by local authorities would be much greater in total but for doubts of the powers to contribute of local authorities which are not in the vicinity of Llangollen. They doubt whether they can assist a festival if it is many miles away. Although all Wales is interested in and proud of this Festival, there are doubts whether authorities, for example, in South Wales or West Wales, can legally make a contribution. That is what the Bill is about.
The powers under Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948, are limited by a proviso that the place of the entertainment—a term with a very wide meaning—should be convenient for residents in the area of the contributing authority. The Bill will remove that limitation in relation specifically to the Llangollen Musical Eisteddfod and in relation to local authorities in Wales—just as an Act of 1959, similarly introduced by a private Member in another place, did in relation to the older Royal National Eisteddfod of Wales.
This is not the time for me to deal with the details of the Bill, but your
138
Lordships nevertheless will wish me to comment briefly on some words of the Bill which seem to have aroused curiosity in another place. The Bill dispenses not only with the limitation by reference to the convenience of residents in the area of the contributing authority, which is the main purpose of the Bill, but also with the requirement that the contributing authority should have the concurrence of the authority in whose area the entertainment takes place. In the context of what I have said about the Llangollen Eisteddfod that may seem a little strange and a superfluity; but when one is making a new provision by amending existing legislation one has to fit it to the pattern of that legislation, and as I have indicated the term "entertainment" in the 1948 Act has a very wide meaning. For some entertainers it is obviously right that another authority wishing to contribute should get the consent of the authority in whose area it is provided, and which indeed may be providing it. For the Llangollen Eisteddfod this would no doubt be a formality, but it is necessary and useful to enable the contributing authority to dispense with the trouble of the formality. I ask your Lordships to give your warm support to a little Bill with a big purpose, which is to help to sustain a wonderful enterprise in a small corner of Wales of which all Britain can be proud.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Maelor.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am glad to say that I find nothing preposterous about the noble Lord's suggestions, as he found about mine earlier in the day, and I am delighted to support this Bill. I would thank the noble Lord for introducing it with such clarity and with a true ring of Welsh oratory, which makes it a pleasure to listen to him in this House. I must declare an interest, because for many years I have been a vice-president of the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod, and so naturally I am fully in support of the Bill and wish it every success.
5.44 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on my own behalf, and on behalf of the Liberal Peers, I would support the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, in asking your Lordships to agree to the Second Reading of this

139
Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I, too, must declare an interest, because for many years I, too, have been a vice-president. In fact there are several Members of your Lordships' House who are also vice-presidents; they seem to have combed through the House pretty well. I support the Bill because the International Eisteddfod is one of the most remarkable projects of the post-war era, at a time when everything is becoming so centralised and when nothing can be done without an enormous public relations operation. Here one finds this small town which sets itself out to promote an international festival embracing all kinds of art—not only singing and dancing, but even such subjects as photography have their place in the Festival, and it is remarkable to see these charming young people from many other countries dressed in their colourful costumes.
The Eisteddfod, like most other bodies to-day, has had to contend with rising costs. Not only is the Eisteddfod responsible for putting up the many hundreds of people who come to the Festival from foreign countries, but it also pays their fares from the port at which they land in this country, usually from Dover. As Llangollen has had its railway station and lines removed as a result of Lord Beeching's activities, this again has meant a very much greater expense for the Eisteddfod authorities. I regret to say that there was a danger only a year ago that this Eisteddfod might have had to close down altogether, but there is now the possibility that local authorities from all parts of Wales can contribute to this very worthy endeavour, which I think the House will support. There is no obligation on them to do so; they need not do so unless they want to, but I imagine that most of them will want to do so. I would urge them, and especially my own county, the County of Glamorgan—and my own town of Bridgend, which is perhaps a little wealthier than some other parts of Wales—to contribute fairly handsomely.
I do not think local authorities have bent over backwards to spend the rate which they are entitled to spend on cultural activities. I remember being in the House of Commons when this matter was proposed by the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan, who was very keen on this subject,
140
but I do not think that local authorities in England, Wales, or Scotland for that matter, have really lived up to their responsibilities. Here is a case where the Welsh local authorities could well put their hands in their pockets, or the ratepayers' pockets, and subscribe to this very worthy organisation. I beg to support the Bill.
5.48 p.m.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, as brevity is the order of the evening, I propose to be very brief in supporting this very useful Bill, certainly in so far as the Principality is concerned. First of all, I should like to congratule my honourable friend the Member for Wrexham in introducing the Bill. The most remarkable thing about him is not only his success, but the amazing luck that followed him in being able to introduce this Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule, because, as ex-Members of the House of Commons are fully aware, that is an occasion for a propaganda exercise—not that I am against propaganda, provided that it is properly directed.
Secondly, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Maelor on introducing the Bill in a speech which was worthy of his fellow countrymen. This Bill, if it realises its purpose, will help the International Festival of Llangollen to be maintained and will add a touch of cavalier gaiety to the somewhat puritanical standards of the Royal Welsh National Eisteddfod. As a result, I sincerely hope that this Bill will be successful and will induce local authorities to give the financial aid necessary to maintain this praiseworthy institution.
5.50 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the commendation and the good wishes, and indeed the congratulations, which have been given to my noble friend Lord Maelor. I feel certain that his honourable friend in another place could not have introduced the Bill with greater eloquence. He was indeed correct when he said that it is a little Bill with a big purpose. Music, as we know, is international, as indeed are all the arts, and Her Majesty's Government have given a lead in their support of the arts. So it is following that policy through when I say that I am empowered to wish this Bill a very speedy

141
passage, and I hope that, by removing any fears which local authorities have about their powers to contribute, it will make it possible for them to be sufficiently generous not only to keep the Festival alive but to make it an even more exciting event than it has been in the past. I am delighted that my noble friend has introduced the Bill here this afternoon, and I wish it a very speedy passage.
5.52 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, I wish to thank noble Lords for the support which they have given me and the Bill this afternoon. I feel grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I paid a tribute to him in a brief intervention this afternoon, and I wish to add to that tribute. Our system of Parliamentary Government provides that there are two sides to both of our Houses, and I am happy that on the other side of this House Wales is represented by a gentleman of the calibre of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. He and his family are highly regarded in the region associated with his title. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is from South Wales, and I was very pleased to have his support from the Liberal Benches. Indeed, he seems to support me in everything I do in the House.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask whether, in return, the noble Lord will support me in my endeavours to retain the Welsh Brigade of Infantry in the Army?
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, as I said, the noble Lord seems to support me in everything I do, and I should not be surprised if one day he is sitting by my side. What he said about the fares paid by the Committee is true, and this is quite naturally a strain on their financial resources. They have to pay to assist the choirs to come from all parts of the world, and the fares have to be paid from the port of landing here in Britain to Llangollen.
Representatives from the three parts of Wales—South Wales, Mid-Wales and North Wales—have spoken here to-day. My noble friend Lord Moyle comes from mid-Wales. He, again, is an English-speaking Welshman but, for all that, is none the less a good Welshman. I said previously that the Eisteddfod will be held next week. May I invite noble Lords to come to the Festival to see it for themselves?
142
I shall be presiding there on the Friday, and the Prime Minister will be there on the Saturday. So your Lordships have your choice.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DECIMAL CURRENCY BILL
5.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my ears certainly pricked up when the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, issued an invitation to your Lordships to attend the Eisteddfod next week. May I say that, if I could count upon that invitation being accepted, this House would certainly be up by July 28. I am quite sure that we could get through a good deal of business if some of our noble friends could proceed to Wales for this performance.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when introducing this Bill in another place, referred to it as an historic occasion. And so it is, because this is the first step in changing from a currency system of coinage and notes which has stood us in good stead for very many years and in moving to a new system of currency. Perhaps in some respects the gilt has gone off the historic significance of this Bill, in the sense that we have already had a major debate, on January 30 of this year, on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, when we had a very full and very interesting discussion. Therefore, in moving the Second Reading I do not intend to deal with the basic issue which divides the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, and his supporters. We covered that very fully on January 30, and having seen the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I think it is quite clear that this issue will be debated very fully on Thursday. Therefore, I shall limit myself to the main provisions of the Bill.
The major provisions of the Bill are for the introduction of a decimal currency system in 1971, and for the constitution and functioning of the Decimal Currency Board. The Bill covers only the basic policy issues. It does not cover all aspects on which

143
legislation will be required before "Decimal Day". These will be included in a second Bill which it is proposed to introduce later in the preparatory period. While it is too early yet to say what the exact provisions of this second Bill will be, it is likely to cover such matters as payment in the new currency, legal tender, transactions in pounds, shillings and pence during the transitional period; payments during and after the transitional period, and a provision for concurrent legal tender during the transitional period. On a number of these matters the Decimal Currency Board will need to consult with the affected interests.
Clause 1 of the present Bill provides for the introduction in 1971, on a day to be appointed by the Treasury, of a decimal currency based on the pound sterling as the major unit and on the new penny as a minor unit; a new penny being a one-hundreth part of the pound sterling. The Government's intention is that, in accordance with the recommendation of the Halsbury Committee, the appointed day shall be in February, 1971. The Decimal Currency Board will recommend exactly which day.
Clause 2 and Schedule I provide for the coinage of the new currency. The bronze coinage will be a new halfpenny, equal in value to 1·2 pennies of the present currency; a new penny, equal in value to 2·4 of the present pennies, and two new pence, equal in value to 4·8 of the present pennies. In size these coins will be slightly larger than the silver threepenny piece, the farthing and the present halfpenny. They will be in weight/value relationship; that is to say, a new penny will be twice the weight of a new halfpenny and half the weight of the new twopenny piece. The cupronickel coins consist of a 5-new-penny and a 10-new-penny piece. These also are to be in weight/value relationship. They will have the same weight, diameter and value as the present 1s. and 2s. pieces.
The clause also extends the existing power to introduce new coins by Proclamation, and permits the issue before the appointed day of decimal coins for use as coins of the existing currency. These powers will enable the Government to introduce a 50-new-penny piece, the specifications of which have yet to be decided; and, should there be a
144
clear demand, a high value coin between 10 and 50-new-penny pieces—for example, perhaps a 20 or a 25-new-penny piece. The question whether there is a popular demand for a coin in this range, and whether or not such a coin is introduced, will of course depend very much on the advice given by the Decimal Currency Board.
The decision to introduce a 50-new-penny piece has been made on economic grounds. The average life of a 10s. note is some five months, and the costs of distribution, withdrawal and replacement are heavy—and these increase annually. A new 50-new-penny coin would cost more to produce initially, but it would have a life of some fifty years. Subject to the views of the Decimal Currency Board, the Government have it in mind to issue a number of 5, 10 and possibly 50-new-penny pieces before Decimal Day to accustom the public to these new decimal coins.
Clause 3 makes certain minor amendments to the Coinage Acts 1870 to 1946. There are two changes of substance. One permits coins to be made by persons other than the Mint provided that they are made with the authority of the Mint. This will enable the Royal Mint, should the need arise, to contract out the making of decimal coins. This is basically an insurance policy. The Government's plan is that the decimal coinage shall be made at a Decimal Mint which is to be built in South Wales. The Royal Mint will eventually be transferred to that site. The other change brings statutory provisions into line with existing practice by providing that expenses incurred in the purchase of metal for coins are to be defrayed out of voted moneys instead of being met out of the Consolidated Fund.
Clause 4 and Schedule 3 provide for the constitution of the Decimal Currency Board. The clause provides for the appointment of a Chairman and members by the Treasury, and for the expenses of the Board to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. Provisions relating to the Board's constitution, members, staff and proceedings are set out in Schedule 3. The Decimal Currency Board was set up as an advisory body in mid-December, 1966. Sir William Fisk is the Chairman, and the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, is the Deputy Chairman.

145
Although the Bill provides for the appointment of a Chairman and 13 other members as the maximum, the total number appointed to the Board so far is 10. There is at present no intention to increase the number beyond 10, but the Bill enables that to be done if it seems desirable. The staff of the Board consists of a secretary, an assistant secretary and supporting staff. There is also an engineering support group headed by a superintending engineer.
Clause 5 sets out the functions of the Board. In general, these are to facilitate the transition from the existing to the new currency and coinage; and its particular functions are described in the clause. The Treasury have power to give the Board general directions on the exercise of its functions, and the Board is required to make an annual report to the Treasury which, in turn, must lay a copy of every report before each House of Parliament.
Clause 6 provides for the dissolution and the winding up of the Board by Statutory Instrument at the end of the transitional period, after which the Board, once it has wound up its affairs, will no longer be required. It is not possible now to say what length the changeover period is likely to be, and this is a matter on which the Board will advise the Government. Legal arrangements for the bringing of the changeover to an end will most probably be covered in the second Decimal Currency Bill. Clause 7 sets out the Short Title, the interpretation and the extent of the Bill.
Those, my Lords, are the provisions of the Bill. I do not think there is any doubt that the House, Parliament and now, I think, the country welcome the change to a decimal currency. We ourselves have accepted the principle. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, and that in Committee on Thursday we can debate once again the main issue, as to what should be the major and the minor units of the new currency. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
6.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as arranged through the usual channels, I shall not comment upon anything which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said
146
at all, although in view of its fascinating interest it is extremely difficult to refrain from doing so. My reason for not commenting is that all that I have to say and all that many of my noble friends have to say can be said on one Amendment on Committee stage, and we do not want to spend time in repetition. In another place, a Reasoned Amendment against the Bill was moved from the Conservative Front Bench on Second Reading, the Reasoned Amendment being to have a 10s. pound instead of a 20s. pound; and there was a very full debate. The Conservative Party did not put on their Whips because they wished to allow a free vote on their side. The Government, of course, as they were entitled to do, did put on their Whips. The same thing will happen here with regard to the Amendment to be moved on Thursday in Committee. I had intended to put the Amendment down this morning, but, finding that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, had already done so, I and my noble friend Lord Redmayne simply added our names to his Amendment.
The only other thing I will say is that we had a very full debate on this subject on January 30, when a great deal of interest was expressed on both sides of the House. As I have said, we on this side shall not be putting on our Whips—there will be an entirely free vote—so the Government will have a great advantage. Everybody will agree, I think, that this is a very important subject. The Financial Times said not long ago that it was the most important question which Parliament would decide in 1967; and when it is decided it will commit the country for a very long time. It is the kind of subject on which both Houses of Parliament ought to have an opportunity of expressing their views and of listening to a wide range of opinion. I therefore hope very much that all of your Lordships who can do so and who have any interest in this subject will do your best to be in the House on Thursday to hear the discussion and, if possible, to vote upon the Amendment.
6.8 p.m.
LORD KAHN: My Lords, I intervene in this debate because I am opposed to the whole principle of this Bill. I am not concerned with the intricacies of the controversy to which your Lordships' House has already devoted one debate and to which it will be devoting further

147
time on Thursday. That controversy is simply one small illustration of my major thesis; namely, that the decimalisation of our currency is just one more of those monstrous irrelevancies of which, in the economic field, the Government seem so fond—although I must admit that on this occasion they seem to have very nearly unanimous support from all sides of your Lordships' House.
Decimalisation will result in a great deal of effort wasted and resources wasted, and in a great deal of confusion and exasperation. My Lords, to what purpose is this going to happen? The adoption of decimal currency will not facilitate our international trading and financial operations. If the Government are really serious about the virtues of international competition, why do they not present to your Lordships' House a metric system Bill? The adoption of the metric system of weights and measures would be progress in a really effective sense. It would be worth while spending time in debating the measure and in devoting resources and energy to making the change. The fact that this Bill is a Decimal Currency Bill and not a metric system Bill, is one more reason for wondering how serious the Government are in grappling with the country's economic and industrial handicaps.
To turn to a different field, why cannot the available energy be devoted to formulating a measure for securing universal transferability of pension rights under private occupational pension schemes?—a measure important for the improvement of labour mobility which was proposed by the staff of the National Economic Development office in the course of a document published in the early summer of 1963. Surely four years should suffice for considering an important proposal of that kind and for drafting the necessary legislation.
However, the subject of this debate is our currency system. That system has one great virtue; and that virtue is revealed if one considers the accurate facility at mental arithmetic, in pounds, shillings and pence, displayed by numerous shop assistants and the like in this country and compares it with the often laborious inaccuracy with which, abroad, each item has to be written on a
148
scrap of paper and all items have then to be added up. The British currency system presents an invigorating mental challenge to our schoolchildren. They meet that challenge and are all the better for it.
My Lords, my submission is that this measure is a distraction away from what is important and that it will result in a waste of effort and resources. That being my submission, it would be inappropriate for me to add further to the wasted time which your Lordships' House has already devoted, and will be further devoting, to this measure. For the same reason it would be inappropriate for me to try to divide the House.
6.14 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I confess that I have considerable sympathy with the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kahn, whose judgment I had good reason to respect in the short time during the last war when we worked together. But on this occasion I am afraid that I must disagree with him. In this day and age I can see no alternative to decimalisation, however great the inconveniences and however great the spur may be in the educational field by the retention of the present system. I must confess to a feeling of disappointment that on this occasion the usual channels have contrived to allow so little time for a Second Reading debate on a measure so important to all of us—to trade, industry, commerce, to banking and to every phase of our national life, and to every individual in this country. I lay no claim to be an authority on procedure, but in the ten years that I have been privileged to attend your Lordships' House I have always understood that a Second Reading debate was an appropriate occasion for the development of the general arguments on any important measure.
Even though to-day we recognise that this Bill and the issues arising out of it were very fully examined in another place by a Standing Committee which sat for five days in the fortnight preceding the Whitsuntide Recess—and on that basis we are enjoined not to repeat arguments then used if they can be avoided—I hope that I may be permitted, bearing in mind that injunction, to sketch as briefly as possible the general arguments on which I would hope to

149
base an Amendment which might be acceptable to the House on Thursday.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I intervene at this point? I think I should make it clear that what was discussed through the usual channels in terms of limiting speeches from these Benches and from the Benches opposite was in no way a gag on any noble Lord. That would be the last thing in my mind. If it were so intended, I am quite sure that it would not have been condoned by noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord is free to put the case he intends to make, and I shall be most interested to listen to him.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I will try to be a brief as possible and merely to sketch the arguments. There are three runners in this race at the present time: the pound/cent/half-cent; the 10s./cent and the pound/mil. Their respective merits and demerits will be very fully examined at the Committee stage. There are, I believe, some serious disadvantages to the pound/cent/half-cent system. In saying this, I am not criticising the Halsbury Committee; yet I think it is surely right, now that we are at the point of decision, that a fresh look should be taken in the light of present and now foreseeable circumstances, at recommendations which were made more than four years ago. In 1961–62 when the Halsbury Committee were still sitting, the issue of the Common Market was not the live issue that it is to-day.
I believe that the main argument against the pound/cent/half-cent system is that it is inflationary, inflexible and inconvenient in terms of coinage. The last, I believe, can be tolerated if necessary; but the first two are serious disadvantages. I would contend that it is inflationary because under it the minimum price variation upward or downward is 1·2 pence as compared with the existing half-penny or half-penny equivalent. Of course, that could be met by adding another coin, the one-fifth cent, to the Government pound/cent/half-cent scheme. But this is not proposed. Furthermore, if we join the Common Market we may find it necessary to have still smaller coins, as other European countries have, for the purposes of sales tax; and a small coin may be convenient, if not absolutely essential, in the event of an added value tax.
150
The 10s./cent system is, of course, convenient in terms of coinage and it, too, could have the half-cent or half-penny equivalent; but so far its proponents have not seen fit to advocate that. But that system, of course, does not retain the pound. The pound/mil system would certainly be no more inconvenient, in terms of coinage than the pound/cent/half-cent. It retains the halfpenny equivalent and is completely flexible.
I will not take up the time of the House to-night by arguing these points in detail, because I understand that it will be more appropriate to do so at Committee stage, but before I sit down I should like to say a world about the position of the Confederation of British Industry and the attitude of trade and industry on this question, so far as I know it. The position of the C.B.I. has been frequently misrepresented or misunderstood. I am a member of the Council of that body, and over the years I have participated in most of their deliberations on this subject. I can assure your Lordships that since the Government first indicated their intention to give effect to the recommendations of the Halsbury Committee the C.B.I. position has been as follows.
Before the issue of the White Paper there was a large volume of opinion in favour of the 10s. rather than the pound as the major unit, if the 10s. system were to include the half-cent or the half-penny equivalent. But there was a relatively small weight of opinion in favour of the 10s. system if it did not include the half-penny equivalent. After the White Paper was issue, and the details of the proposals were studied, the volume of support for the pound/florin/mil system grew, and culminated in specific and repeated representations to the Government that this was the system which the C.B.I. preferred. I believe that the Government are in no doubt that the C.B.I. are against the pound/half-cent system, for the reasons that I have given earlier. I do not think that the C.B.I. would, so to speak, go to the stake for the retention of the sixpenny coin, thought they would like to see it retained, but on the desirability of retaining the half-penny equivalent, and of having a system capable of adjustment without radical alteration if European trading conditions made that desirable, they would have no doubt.

151
The Multiple Shops Federation and the National Association of Multiple Grocers favour a refinement of the pound/florin/mil system; namely, the pound/cent/mil; the cent being a hundredth part of the pound, and the mil a tenth part of the cent, and the minimum coin minted being a 2-mil equivalent to the halfpenny. The Federation of Milk Marketing Boards, the National Dairymen's Association and other associations concerned with the retail distribution of milk are insistent on the importance of retaining the halfpenny equivalent. The commodities for which the retention of the halfpenny equivalent is important include beer, bread, confectionery, eggs, milk, petrol, sugar and tobacco. I would not pretend that there is unanimity on the part of all retail trading organisations, and I am sure that my noble friend Baroness Elliot of Harwood will take the opportunity to amplify that point. I know that there are many who would rate the convenience and associability of the 10s./cent system, with or without the halfpenny equivalent, as all important.
But, my Lords, it would appear that nothing is going to shift Her Majesty's Government from the pound, and I for one, speaking personally, should hate to see them shift from the pound. I am convinced that if we are to change to a decimal currency the pound/florin/mil or some variant of it (and I hope to have an opportunity of explaining some variant of it on Committee stage) is the best system. We are now legislating for generations to come. This system preserves the essentials, as I see it, and is completely flexible.
6.25 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, spoke about "three runners". I do not know which my runner is, in the heirarchy of one, two or three, but I feel strongly that I am an unrepentant "ten-bobber". Whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, puts that first, second or third I do not know, but I must testify that I intend to speak on Thursday at much greater length, and have indeed indicated my support for an Amendment on the subject. But I should like to say a brief word now and to stress the point again.
152
We have had a debate on this subject so I do not propose to go over the details of the system. But on looking again at the Halsbury Committee Report I note that they talk about the importance of the transition period; that transition should be made smoothly, and that it would be wrong to disregard the worry and distress which a change of currency could involve, particularly for some old people and for harassed housewives. There is no doubt that the transition period with the 10s./cent unit would be much easier than with any other unit, and I think that is one of the points which we must consider. Of course, the transition period will pass; nevertheless, I believe that, so far as associability is concerned and helping the ordinary consuming public, the 10s. system has a great advantage over the pound/cent/half-cent system and over the pound/florin/mil system which has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve.
The other argument which I think is paramount is that if we are to change the currency—and I am in favour of a decimal currency—surely the need is to change it to a currency which fits in with the rest of the world. The argument that a pure decimal currency will line us up with our friends across the Channel and make our business machines standard with those used in other countries seems to me to be very important. The system which the Government offer us, the retention of the pound as the main unit, does not do this. I cannot take seriously the argument that as an important industrial country we should have a heavy unit, heavier than the 10s. unit. If we had a 10s. unit it would in fact be quite a heavy unit compared with units of other countries; therefore I think that argument would fall.
The system about which the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has spoken, the pound/florin/mil system, has some supporters, but I do not think as many as the 10s./cent system. I know that the number of people anxious to have the 10s. system and represented by retail and other interests on our Decimal Coinage Committee runs into millions, and although some of them may have considered the pound/florin/mil system I do not think that is what they really favour. It would be very complicated. It is based on the figure of a thousand—a thousand little coins in a row making up

153
a pound—which seems to me a fantastic idea. I do not think it is something which would recommend itself to the Treasury. At the moment the Treasury is backing the wrong horse, as I think, but I cannot believe it would back that one. So I think that the adoption of the pound/florin/mil system would be a step backward rather than a step forward.
I understand that the main argument about the halfpenny; but it is the fact, I think, that those nations who have gone over to the 10s./cent unit, or some of them—South Africa, for one—kept the half cent in their currency but very soon it dropped out, because they did not find it was necessary. We know that recently both South Africa and Australia have changed their currency to the 10s./cent system and that it has worked extremely successfully. The associability and ease of changeover has, I understand, been far easier and better than people expected. It has, in fact, been a great success.
So I stand firmy on the "ten bob" and I would ask the Government to heed the views of those millions of ordinary people who desperately want a ten shilling unit, which would keep us in line with the rest of Europe. I hope we shall discuss this further. I do not propose to discuss other systems, though the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has told us that a part of the population support them. I think that the big majority of ordinary people who daily handle currency in small coinage—I mean the ordinary shopkeepers and shoppers—favour the ten shilling unit, and that is the unit I beg the Government to consider even at this late hour.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, I do not want to speak to the Bill, but I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, one question. I am not happy about the matter of the timing either of the previous debate on this Bill or of this one. I do not know if I read the Order Paper correctly, but I should like to ask that this question should be put down as first business on Thursday if possible.
6.32 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to those noble Lords who have stayed at this relatively late hour to take part in, and listen to, our debate. It is certainly with no disrespect
154
to noble Lords that I say that the only new thing I have heard this afternoon is the speech of my noble friend Lord Kahn, who is opposed to the whole idea of decimalisation. I am bound to say that I have a sneaking sympathy with him. I like the halfcrown and the "two-bob" piece. I am sure it is going to take me a little longer than the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in spite of all her fears about it, to get used to the new coinage, but I think that I am a reasonably intelligent sort of chap and in the end I shall be able to shop with the decimal coinage.
We shall have a debate on Thursday. I wonder how we are going to manage our Committee stage. If the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, puts down an Amendment for the mil, clearly he will have to vote with the Government for the pound. He can hardly vote with the "ten-bobbers". If we have a Division on the noble Lord's Amendment, I cannot see the noble Baroness abstaining, and no doubt I shall walk through the Division Lobby with her. Perhaps, with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, we can devise a way whereby we can have a debate on this issue. There may be some procedural difficulties, but being the House of Lords, we may be able to manage our affairs so that those who wish to vote one way will be able to do so.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, that I am sorry that this historic Bill should have come so late in the evening. We had a number of Private Members' Bills before the House. I am conscious of the rights of Private Members—I have been told about them every day. And these Bills were down on the Order Paper before we were able to get this Bill on the Paper.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, my noble friend was not objecting to this to-day. He only hoped that Thursday's Committee stage on this Bill would be the first Order.
LORD SHEPHERD: I was seeking to defend myself by explaining why the Bill was so late to-day. I give the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, this assurance: that if there are any Bills in front of this Bill on Thursday, they will be formal. If there is any possibility that a debate is likely to arise on any of them, I shall

155
ask the House to agree to their consideration being postponed until we have had the Committee stage of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FUGITIVE OFFENDERS BILL
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

COMMONWEALTH PRESS CABLE CHARGES
6.35 p.m.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what consultations they had with the Commonwealth Secretariat before the decision to increase the Press rate on Commonwealth cables; and whether they will make a statement. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to put the Question standing in my name. I can promise that I will not keep your Lordships for long, because the point is perfectly obvious. Nevertheless, I think it is of particular importance at the present time.
It is true to say that the Commonwealth was always a rather hypothetical union, but it was bound together in former times by three things—a common language, a common origin and, last, but by no means least, a common ideal. But, with the exception of the older Commonwealth countries, that is no longer the case, and there are signs that some of the links in the chain which binds the Commonwealth together are wearing dangerously thin. Therefore it is particularly important that we should keep one of the strongest influences which hold it together—that is, free and easy intercommunication between nations as regards news and the political scene. If there is anything calculated to kill that freedom of intercommunication, it is surely the Postmaster General's decision to raise the charge on Commonwealth Press cables from 1d. to 3d. a word—a 200 per cent. increase. It can have only one of two effects: it either means that we get much less news about the Commonwealth or it means that the price of papers will rise rapidly.
It seems that there was no consultation whatsoever with the Commonwealth Secretariat before this decision was taken. In connection with this, I should like to quote the Guardian of May 1 of this year. It said:
"There was no liaison and no consultation between Whitehall and the London Office of the Commonwealth Secretariat before the decision was taken to increase the present rate of cables to Commonwealth countries from 1d. to 3d. a word."
That seems a very extraordinary thing. I should also like to quote a short leader from the Telegraph of April 24, which said:
"Little enough remains, goodness knows, of the old links which used to bind the Commonwealth together. It is commonly and justly said that what still gives the Commonwealth a tenuous unity is a certain community of ideas, institutions and good and frequent communications between the Commonwealth countries and on the close and continuous knowledge of one another that stems therefrom. For this reason deep regret at the Government's decision to abolish the Commonwealth Press rate for outward cables from the United Kingdom, thereby tripling the cost, should not be confined to newspapers.
"These special Press rates have been under threat for some time. It has been argued that the loss of revenue cannot be justified by the contribution made to keeping the frail fabric of the Commonwealth together. The inward rates, the responsibility of the other Commonwealth countries, are clearly threatened, too. The cable traffic concerned, however, falls largely within the hours when commercial traffic is idle and the service is underused. Press communications with the Commonwealth countries will certainly be reduced. Some correspondents are sure to be withdrawn from London. The risk of further casualties in the newspaper world will be increased."
The major argument against the big increase in charges, however, remains the risk of losing faith. The Government are earning a rapidly spreading reputation for taking actions without ever consulting those whom those actions are going to affect most severely. I hope that the Government will think again before actually implementing this extra charge.
6.41 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to support everything that my noble friend Lord Somers has said. We appreciate that the 1d. per word rate was instituted only as a war-time measure, and that the new rate of 3d. a word still constitutes a substantial concession on the normal rate, but when we are spending millions on overseas information services,

157
is it really wise to try to save a comparatively small sum in this penny-pinching way? This increase may mean the difference between a Commonwealth country being able to keep a correspondent in this country or not. As my noble friend Lord Somers quoted from one of the newspapers, Press cables are usually sent out at a time when commercial traffic is idle and the service is under-used. So the cost to the country of the original penny concession may not have been quite as much as was originally thought.
I should particularly like to express regret at the timing of the annuncement. If your Lordships remember, round about April 20 it was announced that the Cabinet were coming to a decision on whether to join the Common Market or not, and it was said that an announcement would be made shortly. The announcement was, in fact, made on May 2. The Commonwealth countries were, somewhat naturally, awaiting this news with understandable apprehension. They did not know exactly how much the Commonwealth was going to be weakened by this approach to the Common Market. The Postmaster General chose exactly the middle of this waiting period to make this announcement. That, surely, was bound to inspire fears as to a further weakening of Commonwealth ties. This timing must be an absolute masterpiece of choosing the wrong moment to announce possibly the wrong news.
6.43 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, let me say straight away that I agree with everything the noble Lords, Lord Somers and Lord Denham, have said about the importance of communications within the Commonwealth. I cannot speak for other peoples, but certainly looking at the scene from London I am sure we could all profit from knowing much more about what goes on in our fellow countries of the Commonwealth. One thing one hears most and likes least from Commonwealth visitors to the United Kingdom is their remarks that, judging from our newspapers, we seem to have lost interest in the Commonwealth. They read the trivia which fill so much of the columns
158
of so many of our journals and see no mention of the constructive efforts which they know are taking place back home.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, mentioned the Common Market. I agree with him that it is surprising that our United Kingdom newspapers do not attempt to assess the real heartburn and anxiety which can be found in, say, the West Indies, Australia or New Zealand about our application to join the E.E.C. So that we are all agreed on this: that there is now inadequate coverage of Commonwealth news, and there ought to be much more coverage. But I cannot find any evidence that cable costs are the cause of this present inadequate coverage. In any case, we all agree that there should be a special Press rate for Commonwealth cables. There has been a special Press rate for the Commonwealth for years and there will be a special rate in the future, even after the proposed increase takes effect in September.
Possibly I ought to set out some of the facts. The pre-war rate was 2¼d. a word. In September, it will be 3d. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said, that in 1941, for special and temporary reasons, the rate came down to the 1d. a word that has since been charged. But, even so, can anyone name any commodity or service which has the same relation to pre-war charges? It was 2¼d. a word before the war and the proposal now is that in September of this year it shall be 3d. a word. As I have said, charges have been kept low as a matter of Commonwealth policy, and at 3d. per word the Post Office subsidy, I am told, will be another 4d. per word; that is to say, the economic cost is 7d. a word, and the charge will be 3d. a word.
I asked for comparative charges for non-Commonwealth countries. There is no flat-rate charge for non-Commonwealth countries. These are rather comlicated. It may be that the following examples will be of some interest. The European scheme of charges provides for a 50 per cent. Press reduction on ordinary rates, and the ordinary rates range from 7d., for Belgium and France, to 1s. 3d. for the U.S.S.R., and 1s. 6d. in certain other European areas. So that, even compared with the short routes across to the Continent, the rates to all parts of the Commonwealth will be lower.

159
The extra-European scheme requires a two-thirds discount on public rates. There are no charge limits, but examples given to me include the United Arab Republic, with the ordinary rate of 1s. 4d. a word and a Press rate of 5¼d. per word; Ecuador, at 3s. 11d. ordinary rate and 1s. 3¾d. Press rate, and Chad, where for example the rate ordinarily is 4s. 1d. and 1s. 4¾d. for the Press. So no one can say against these figures that the Commonwealth Press is being overcharged. I should, in fairness, add that the U.S.A. rate is currently the same as the pre-war Commonwealth rate—that is to say, 2¼d. a word—but an increase is now under consideration.
So far as volume of traffic is concerned one interesting fact emerges from the information given to me: that traffic on Commonwealth cables, even at the 1d. rate, has been decreasing and not increasing in recent years. In the year up to March 31, 1961, 26·3 million words were sent over Commonwealth cables. In the year ended March 31, 1966, the comparative figure was only 16·4 million words. The explanation, in large part, is that messages are increasingly sent by more modern means—for example, by leased circuits and multi-destination Press broadcasts. So to a large extent these cables are not now used, even at 1d. a word. This, of course, is not a reason for increasing the cable rate, but it does indicate that this increase will not after all be so severe as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, seemed to indicate.
I was also asked what consultations had taken place on this important matter, and the noble Lord specifically asked about the Commonwealth Secretariat. It is quite wrong to say that we have not consulted anyone on this. The noble Lord really should not make a statement of that kind. There is a long history of consultation about this increase, stretching back, as a matter of fact, for eleven years. The question of increasing the rate from 1d. to 3d. a word was first considered in 1956 by the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, which is the advisory body to the Commonwealth Telecommunications Partnership. It has been considered by the Board on many occasions since, and recommendations
160
have been made to Governments for an increase. It was discussed—that is to say, there was mutual consultation—at the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference in 1958; and in that year the Board's recommendation for an increase was endorsed.
In 1963 the then British Government decided to accept the recommendation of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board to increase the rate to 3d. After this intra-Commonwealth Conference, the specific increase to 3d. was put before all the Commonwealth Governments directly. The great majority were in favour of the increase. This consultation took over a year, but nothing further was then done until the beginning of this year, when it was decided to make the increase effective, as from the beginning of September. We again informed Commonwealth Governments of our intention to make this increase before it was announced here, and gave them time to comment, if they wished to do so. But none of them in fact did.
The Commonwealth Secretariat was not consulted. Of course, when the matter first became an issue, and the first recommendations were made, the Secretariat had not then been established. As I have already indicated, there is an established pattern of consultation in this field of telecommunications, and we also made direct contact with the Commonwealth Governments. Nevertheless, I do accept that, after the establishment of the Secretariat, and particularly when a date for the new charge was being decided, the Secretariat ought properly to have been informed of the existing position and what was in mind for the future. I am sorry that this was not done. No discourtesy was intended, and I am sure that the Secretary-General will accept this. I doubt very much whether the same difficulty will arise in the future, but there were special features about this, as I tried to indicate, going back over a period of eleven years.
Well, my Lords, that is the position; those are the facts. I would hope that, on the basis of those facts, it will be accepted that the proposed increase is not unreasonable, and that there was adequate consultation, either through

161
the properly established consultative machinery, or directly with the Commonwealth Governments.

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

SAINT STEPHENS, SOUTH LAMBETH BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes before seven o'clock.