Lords Sitting of 16 November 1967

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD AIREDALE on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln
The Duke of Argyll—Took the Oath.

UNIVERSITY GRANTS
3.5 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total of grants for furniture and equipment to universities authorised on or before July 25, 1967, for the current period, and to what total amount, and to which universities, have further such grants been authorised since that date.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the total amount of grant authorised for university expenditure on furniture and equipment in the current financial year was £25·5 million. On October 27, 1967, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced in another place that an additional £1·65 million is to be made available. By July, 1967, the drawings by universities amounted to about £8·5 million. The total drawings to date are about £14 million. The allocation of grants to individual universities is a matter for the University Grants Committee.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. It sounds to me to be a little close. Do the figures include the interest on overdrafts, to which a number of the universities had to submit in order to get new buildings occupied and in use?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will appreciate that that is a question with which I shall have to deal later. I will let him have the reply in writing.

ACCIDENT RATE ON DUNKELDDALWHINNIE (A.9) ROAD
LORD ALLERTON: 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—

1. Whether the accident rate on the A.9 road between Dunkeld and the Inverness-shire county boundary is in excess of the average rate per mile of trunk road;

2. Whether, taking into consideration the width of this stretch of road, the volume of traffic is in excess of the average.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I will deal with this section of the A.9 in two parts. Between Dunkeld and Blair Atholl, where the volume of traffic is heavier, the accident rate over the last three years is below the average for Class I or trunk roads in rural areas. At the last census, taken in 1965 during August, when traffic is at its peak, this section was carrying more traffic than would be allowed for in designing new roads to the ideal standards; but this does not mean that the road was necessarily congested or dangerous. From Blair Atholl North to the county boundary, the accident rate over the last three years is average, and in August, 1965, this section was carrying about the same amount of traffic as we allow for in designing to ideal standards.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him whether I am right in thinking that on the main parts of this road between Dunkeld and the Inverness County boundary there were, between July 1, 1963, and June 30, 1967, 101 accidents, resulting in four deaths, 37 persons being seriously injured and 68 persons slightly injured? If these figures are right, they amount to three accidents per mile of road in one year. Is it really as bad as this everywhere else? And am I right in thinking that on the greater part of this road its width is insufficient to permit double white lines to be painted on it?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in relation to the second part of the Question, the noble Lord is right. Double white lines cannot be painted on roads unless it is certain that there are no places where vehicles have to cross them in order to proceed in the ordinary way. So far as the first part of the question is concerned, I have no doubt that the noble Lord has extracted his statistics correctly, although if he had asked me to furnish them, instead of giving them to me, I should have been unable to do so. Assuming that they are right, I must come back to the Answer that I have already given, which may be a condemnation of the situation over the country as a whole: that if people drive better in the circumstances in which they find themselves there will be fewer accidents.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord.

PROBATION AND AFTER-CARE SERVICE
3.9 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made towards bringing the Probation and After-Care Service up to the strength needed to match the tasks being set it.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, plans were made in 1965 to expand the Probation and After-Care Service in England and Wales from 2,200 to 3,500 established officers by 1970. Those plans did not take account of some additional duties which have since been assigned to the Probation Service, notably prison welfare and parole, but in other respects the work-load has risen less than had been expected; in particular, the rate of increase in the number of probation orders has been significantly lower than had been forecast. The present strength of established officers is just over 2,700. About 360 students are expected to complete training and become available for appointment as probation officers by the end of 1968. While the net increase in
842
strength has fallen short of what was thought necessary for the fulfilment of the plans, there has been a marked increase in recruiting and a decline in wastage, and I am confident that the Service will be able to meet the challenge of the new tasks which it has been asked to undertake.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and I am glad to know that the figures show an improvement. Would he not agree that there has been such an enormous backlog up to now that the possibility of reaching the target of 3,500, or anything like it, by 1970 is still very remote? Is the noble Lord able to say that he still has the same assurance which he and his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had and expressed to us during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill during the summer, when we laid several new burdens on the Probation Service?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords. I am even more certain now that the position is and will be adequate: first of all, because in the target of 3,500 we had forecast a 7 per cent. annual increase in the number of probation orders, and the actual increase has been only an average of 1 per cent.; secondly, because the wastage, which was 7·6 per cent. in 1965, is now running at the rate of only 5 per cent.; thirdly, because the work-load has actually decreased. When we made the estimate we thought it would be impossible to get below an average case-load for men officers of less than 60 until we had 3,500 officers in post. The actual case-load is now 56. Finally, although there have been extra duties, the number of probation officers involved is far lower than was estimated. Only the equivalent of 15 officers have been required for work on the parole boards, and the equivalent of 15 to 20 officers for after-care.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, is it not a fact that when the Criminal Justice Act comes into full operation, it is likely that there will be greater use of the Probation Service? Is it not a fact, also, that the salaries paid to probation and after-care officers are certainly a deterrent to recruiting, and that it is time we looked at the situation and gave them salaries commensurate with the work they do?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, no one is more anxious than I am now, and no one has been in the past, to see that adequate salaries are paid to probation officers. But the fact that we have less wastage, and the fact that we have actually a record number of 360 trained officers coming into service in the next 14 months is, I think, evidence that we are meeting, or are going to meet, the targets that were set. With regard to the additional duties which will be placed on probation officers by the Criminal Justice Act, some of these I have already dealt with, and we are taking account of the remainder.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, could my noble friend give an assurance that in the recruitment of officers to the Probation Service nothing will be done to reduce the standard of entry?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are anxious to get to the stage where all probation officers coming into Service will be trained, but unfortunately we still have to accept direct entrants. I am hopeful, however, that the number will steadily decline so that shortly we shall have only fully trained officers.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord is more confident, but may I ask him how he accounts for the fact that, while he gets more confident, the local probation committees are getting more anxious—so anxious, in fact, that they are recruiting this year twice as many untrained staff as last year? Would he confirm that in the first nine months of last year they recruited 39 untrained staff and that, so far, in the first nine months of this year, to meet what they anticipate will be the need, they have recruited 79 untrained staff?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, periods of nine months are not always a fair comparison. Over the last three years it is true that there have been recruited by direct entry 210 officers, an average of 70 a year. Thirty-four of those were already in voluntary service. I do not think the number will go up, and the fact that the case-loads have gone down is indisputable evidence that the pressure has been relieved. If we have a record entry of trained officers now into the Service the case-load must continue to go down, and
844
if probation committees are acting in the way the noble Lord suggests, they should take cognisance of this.

TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE
3.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what practical steps have so far been taken to initiate the "urgent multilateral discussions designed to create a new dynamic in European Technology" advocated by the Prime Minister at the Guildhall banquet on November 13, and whether any proposals have been made to discuss this matter with any industrial or scientific organisations in Europe.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, in the second of the seven proposals in his Guildhall speech the Prime Minister indicated that we are ready to embark on urgent multilateral discussions with our European partners, designed to create a new dynamic in European technology. This proposal has been conveyed to our European partners, not only in the speech, but also through diplomatic channels. This is the first and most practical step to initiate the discussions contemplated. The noble Earl will have seen that the Prime Minister's proposals have been welcomed in a number of European countries. The form and nature of the discussions remain to be agreed with our European partners.
With regard to the second part of the noble Earl's Question, the Prime Minister discussed this question with the C.B.J who have warmly welcomed his proposal and will, I understand, be meeting with their sister organisations in Europe to decide on their course of action. It will have been noted from the Prime Minister's speech that this new drive for a European technology must go ahead simultaneously with negotiations for British entry to the European Economic Community.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer,

845
and I am very glad to hear of the steps which are being taken to promote discussions for greater technical co-operation. Could the noble Lord say whether any proposals are being submitted to representatives of electronics industries or computer industries, or the European Steel Community or any group of industrialists in Germany or Benelux, or France or Italy? If these discussions are urgent, as I am sure they are, ought not the Government to be able to say more precisely who is being asked to talk to whom, and when?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think this is an interesting topic, which might well be a subject we could discuss on an Unstarred Question. But, very simply, the Prime Minister in his speech said he was ready to talk bilaterally—or, at least, this country was—with any European partner in the field of computers, electronics and the civil application of nuclear energy. But, of course, a major part of the proposal is the development of the European Institute of Technology—I have a feeling that "Technology" in certain respects is a slightly misleading word; it is almost a European Industrial Institute—which will provide the focus for discussions in which industry will be able more easily to participate with their collaborators.
So far as approaches to particular groups such as he has mentioned in this country are concerned, I cannot say whether they have taken place, but it would be entirely consistent with the measures that are being taken, which I assure the noble Earl are energetic.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the responsibility has been clearly defined as between the Ministry of Technology and the Foreign Office for master-minding this idea?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is one of those subjects which involve more than one Department. Clearly the Foreign Office are the proper channel for communication with foreign Governments; but I happen to know that the Ministry of Technology and the Foreign Office are working very closely on this particular subject. In certain areas it may even involve other Departments.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the Industrial Reorganisation Corpora
846
tion will play a part in these mergers, in the same way as they are doing in Britain?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, that is an interesting point. There is the germ of such an idea in the European Institute of Technology. But we have not yet reached that sort of stage, although one could see that if this progressed—I certainly speak without any authority to say that this will happen—it could develop in that kind of way, with a view to developing the sort of mergers we generally may think desirable in this country.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the Prime Minister's proposals constitute striking evidence of the great contribution that this country could make in technological advancement in Western Europe, if and when we join the Common Market; and, therefore, are they not to be warmly welcomed by all of us?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's point, which is perfectly true. We have all along taken the view that we have a major contribution to make to Europe in the technological field. But we are going ahead with this simultaneously, and of course it is not exclusive only to the European Economic Community. Countries like Norway may well participate.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, could my noble friend tell us what a European partner is, and how many countries in Western Europe are not European partners?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, a partner is somebody with whom somebody works. I will leave it to the noble Lord to decide which countries we do not work with.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister three questions? Is he aware of the strong support given to the idea of technological co-operation between the Six and the United Kingdom which is in the Report of July 1, 1966, of the European Parliament, which was produced by the rapporteur, Mr. Diomède Catroux, who is an influential member of the U.N.R. Party? Also, can the Minister say what reaction there has been in Gaullist Parliamentary circles and

847
French Government circles to the Prime Minister's proposals of last Monday? And, finally, may I ask the noble Lord whether this offer is a conditional offer; and if it is a conditional offer, does he not think in effect it will lose some of its weight and influence?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, whose interest we know. He always brings fresh information, particularly from France. Although this matter was, as he correctly said, discussed by the Council of Europe, there have been a number of other discussions along these lines by a number of international bodies. Indeed, one might have thought there was almost a multiplicity of them. But this is a new initiative, trying to translate certain ideas into active technological development. I am afraid I cannot answer—and if I could I think I should prefer not to answer—his question about Gaullist circles. But generally I can say that those countries which we approached directly have clearly welcomed the approach.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord? This is, I feel, a very important point. Is this a conditional offer, or not a conditional offer?
LORD SHACKLETON: No, my Lords, it is not a conditional offer. I may also tell him that we have been welcomed by the Governments of Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Belgium—which partly, by exclusion, answers one of his questions. This is not a conditional offer.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, could the noble Lord give an assurance that nothing will be done to separate our technological development from that of the United States, who have helped us so much in developing our technology in recent years?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that that raises rather wider questions than the original Question. But it has always been our view that our developing co-operation in Europe—and possibly our membership, as we hope, of the European Economic Community—should not be of such a kind as to sever the highly important links we all value with the United States.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Rowley to advance his Motion on crime from Wednesday the 6th of December to Wednesday the 29th of November.—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARMY ACT 1955 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1967
3.28 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move the first Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. Past practice with regard to these two Orders does not offer consistent guidance on how they are to be dealt with in this House. Last year no Orders were necessary because the Armed Forces Act 1966 continued the Army and Air Force Acts of 1955 in force until the end of 1967. In 1965 the Orders went through without debate, as they also did in 1963. In 1964, however, there was a short debate. If your Lordships agree I propose this year to follow the example of 1964, for this seems to me to be an opportunity to say something about those aspects of the Army and Air Force with which the Army and Air Force Acts are principally concerned. If your Lordships agree, I propose to follow again the precedent of 1964 and deal with both the Army and the Air Force in moving the first Order, the Army Act (Continuation) Order. Then, after the debate, provided of course that your Lordships have no objection, I shall formally move the Order relating to the Air Force.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 brought to an end the system of annual Army and Air Force Acts and substituted a system of continuation annually by Orders in Council for a maximum period of five years. The Army and Air Force Act 1961, and the Armed Forces Act 1966, have continued the system of annual Orders in Council and quinquennial

849
Acts. The Orders which are before your Lordships to-day are the first to be made under the 1966 Act.
The Army and Air Force advance with the times like all our institutions, including your Lordships' House, and we hear of newer and better machines and equipment of all sorts and of increased mobility and increased fire power. But confronted with the Army and Air Force Acts we are reminded forcibly that the Services consist of men run by men and that one of the foundations of their success is their discipline. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the state of discipline in the Army and the Air Force is good. I think that this is borne out by the latest statistics associated with the maintenance of discipline. Your Lordships will hear in mind that they include provision for military offences—not crime in the accepted sense of the word. First, the Army. The last 12 months have not witnessed any striking changes in the statistics concerning courts-martial. Thirteen officers were convicted, which is three less than the number in the previous year, and represents about one officer in 1,500. In the same period 1,900 soldiers were convicted, This is a slight decrease in the number from the previous year, and when expressed as a percentage of strength is a reduction from 1·23 per cent. to 1·21 per cent. of the overall other rank strength of the Army. Although there has been a slight increase in the number of convictions for absence without leave, this has been balanced by a decrease in the number of other offences. The slight increase in absence without leave results largely from the reduction in overseas service: there is less excitement at home, and a man is more vulnerable to personal factors outside the Army. All officers are fully aware of this problem, and every effort is being made to minimise it by careful man-management and imaginative training.
There has been a slight decrease in the number of appeal petitions to the Army Board, 16 as against 19 in the previous year, while the number of cases taken to the Appeal Court fell from 10 to 8. No appeals were upheld by the Appeal Court last year, but in the previous year one finding of murder was changed to manslaughter and the sentence reduced accordingly.
850
So far as discipline in the Royal Air Force is concerned, I am happy to be able to say that the steady improvement over the past few years has been maintained in the year 1966–67. The number of courts-martial held was 2·45 for every 1,000 members of the R.A.F., while the number of offences tried summarily by commanding officers has fallen, from 168 per 1,000 personnel in 1965 to 140 per 1,000 of the Service population in 1966.
The court-martial system also continues to work well. In the two years ended September 30, 1967, there were only 24 petitions to the Air Force Board against the findings or sentences of courts-martial, of which two were successful. In addition, there were 18 appeal petitions, all of which were rejected. Seven of those were pursued to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, but only two of those appeals were upheld, and the Court has not yet reached its decision in a third case. The rules of procedure applicable to courts-martial are kept under review to bring them, so far as possible, into line with the rules which apply in civil courts, and I think the very small number of appeals against those decisions of courts-martial which have been confirmed shows that the accused Serviceman is given as fair a hearing as in the civil courts.
The Armed Forces Act 1966 also provided, as the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, will remember, for the basic provisions for enlistment of soldiers to be removed from the Army Act and to be prescribed by statutory instrument. The new Army Terms of Service Regulations were laid before your Lordships' House on July 5 this year, and came into effect on August 1. This means that they are no longer subject to scrutiny by Parliament each year in the way that they used to be. Nevertheless, I think it would be appropriate to continue to regard recruiting as having a strong link with the Army Act.
I think I should remind your Lordships that the Army succeeded in recruiting its full strength of soldiers in late 1966 and the spring of this year. A relatively high rate of prolongation was attained within the Army. This is a success story, for there were grave doubts whether a voluntary Army of 180,000 could ever be recruited. However, I must tell your Lordships that experience since then has

851
not been so happy. We have not maintained the steady flow of soldier recruits for the Army as was the case in 1965 and 1966, and from February of this year soldier recruiting has fallen off. The total intake for 1967 looks like being less than 16,000, as compared with 19,928 and 18,502 for 1965 and 1966 respectively.
Recruitment is generally satisfactory for most branches of the R.A.F., and the numbers and quality of candidates for commissions are such that a high standard of selection can be maintained. The only exceptions are certain ground branches requiring professional qualifications, of which the Engineer Branch presents the most serious problem. The shortage of professionally qualified candidates reflects the current national shortage in this field. The total number of recruits during 1967 for the R.A.F. ground trades is expected to be of the same order as the total recruited during 1966. Adult recruiting for most R.A.F. engineering trades was satisfactory, as was that for the W.R.A.F., though there was a shortage of suitable applicants for some of the less glamorous and spectacular, but none the less important, ground trades. Many more suitable recruits are certainly going to be needed, particularly for the less highly qualified craft and administrative apprentices.
Internal recruiting—that is, re-engagements and extensions by airmen already serving—is running at a reasonably satisfactory rate, although it could be higher. The R.A.F. external recruiting organisation is being kept under continuous review to produce the right number of recruits of the proper calibre. Several careers information offices have been re-sited and mobile recruiting facilities for exhibition, and so on, have been improved. Advertising and publicity of all kinds is, as your Lordships agree, vital.
Your Lordships may ask why we should be so concerned with recruitment at a time when we are faced with redundancies. It is the Government's intention to maintain balanced, effective forces which can play their full part in safeguarding the security of national interests, and to achieve this a steady inflow of recruits is required. Despite the need for reductions it is the Government's firm intention to do all they can to provide the maximum stability and proper career
852
prospects for men and women who wish to make the Services their career.
Your Lordships will not think it unusual of me, at the end of this short speech, to pay tribute to the officers and men of the three Services. For technical reasons our debate this afternoon is not concerned with the Royal Navy, but I should not wish to exclude the Navy from my tribute. The Services have seen many changes in the past, and the reshaping of Defence policy which has been announced in the White Papers since the present Government took office will certainly lead to substantial changes in the numbers, deployment and roles of our forces. I am convinced, however, that the Services will meet these new challenges with their traditional coolness, efficiency, courage and perpetual good temper. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Army Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1967, laid before the House on 31st October, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
3.40 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, for introducing this Order as he has done. This is obviously not the occasion for a defence debate, but there are a few questions that I should like to put to him regarding the progress of certain schemes which were outlined by the Minister of Defence at the end of the last Session, so that we may know what is going on and what is going to be done during the coming months. I am very glad indeed to hear what he says about the discipline of the Army and the R.A.F. I propose to deal with a few points applicable to the Army, and my noble friend Lord St. Oswald will have something to say about the R.A.F.
Recruiting was most satisfactory, I think it was as good as it was in 1966 and early this year, and we know what the Minister says about the drop-off at the moment. We appreciate that the problem of recruiting for an Army that is going to be based almost entirely at home or in Germany is a big one; and I must say, though it is only a detail, that Malta springs to mind just now. We wish that the Government would consider the retention of a garrison there for a little longer. I believe that £11 million has been spent on barracks and quarters in

853
Malta in the last five years, and the wonderful welcome given there to Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh emphasises their friendly attitude to this country. The economy of the Island, which has had another cruel blow through the closure of the Suez Canal, would also be assisted if we were able to leave our garrison there a little longer. May we appeal to the Government to reconsider the withdrawal of the garrison from Malta?
Now with regard to some of the Government's announced plans, can the Minister give us information on certain matter of which I have given him rather short notice—first of all, a point involving Military Law, the continuance of which is covered by this Order? On October 25 the Minister of Defence said in another place that when the Army Act was next reviewed consideration would be given to re-defining respective civil and military powers of arrest under Sections 74 and 186 of that Act. Can the Minister tell me whether it is intended to proceed with such a review, and, if so, when? Secondly, have the Government any plans for further reorganisation of the Army involving disbandments and amalgamations? How and when is the new divisional grouping system to be introduced? We are worried that the best of the old traditions will not be preserved in this wider organisation, and we should like our minds to be put at rest on that point. Thirdly, regarding the return to this country of units from abroad, can the Minister tell us how many units have already returned? Are they all in barracks suitable for the coming winter? Are there sufficient married quarters? Is the necessary works programme up to date for others shortly returning? And shall we be short of married quarters in 1968? How many caravans may be needed?
These are the only points that I wish to raise at this stage, but I should like on behalf of my noble friends on this side to join with the Minister in paying a tribute to the Army and to the other two Services for their exemplary work during the last year, particularly in Aden. Though much reduced in size—in our opinion, perhaps too much—not only has the Army carried out some difficult tasks in dangerous places, but wherever troops have served abroad they have, by their example and their high standards of dis
854
cipline and efficiency, aroused admiration and envy and brought great credit on their country. We wish the Services all success in the difficult tasks before them.
3.44 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to say a word on the Army, and that portion of the Army particularly which is Welsh. Your Lordships will be aware that the Government have thought fit to cut down materially the infantry units of the Army. In my opinion this is a most retrograde step, a most foolish step, particularly with regard to the infantry. For a number of years I myself commanded both infantry and artillery units, and I know well that in these days it is much, much harder to train up to a high standard an infantry unit than an artillery unit. This applies to most other arms of the Service.
Always, throughout history, after a great war the British Government of the day, supported by the British Parliament, have proceeded to cut down and pare the Army below the level at which it can properly operate. I am perfectly certain—I say this with all the power that I can bring—that in a few years' time we shall greatly regret the fact that we have allowed this Government, owing to the system of Whips and the machinery of the Parties, to get away with this proposal. We are spending an enormous amount of money on defence, most of which is quite unnecessary and is wasteful. We are also spending an enormous amount on a headquarters, on the Ministry of Defence itself, and we are bleeding the most important part, the vital part, of the Army; namely, the artillery and the infantry.
So far as Wales is concerned, no words of mine can express my disgust at what is happening. We have only three regiments of the line in Wales. These regiments will no longer be Welsh. With all the great traditions of Wales, going back into the mists of time, these three regiments, the youngest of which is over 200 years old, have fought Britain's battles right through the pages of history; and whatever great battle there has been, one finds;—I do not know why this is a laughing matter to Ministers opposite. It is no laughing matter to the men who have been killed on the battlefield. These regiments carry colours blazoned with all the great battles in British history. Take

855
any one you like, such as Waterloo, Mons, and, in the last war, the battles in Burma and in France. In Crete the Commander-in-Chief, towards the end of the battle, sent to Mr. Churchill saying that there were only two regiments still in fighting trim. One was the Royal Marines and the other was the Welch Regiment. Churchill sent back to General Freyberg, saying, "Can you carry on the fight with the Royal Marines and the Welch Regiment?"
The Welch Regiment is now to cease to exist, after more than 200 years. It is to be wiped off the face of the earth. I am afraid that this will have the greatest effect on recruiting. There will no longer be a Welsh Brigade; it will be merged with two English brigades in an administrative division, and the three regiments of Wales will cease to exist. I feel that from every point of view—the identity of Wales, the martial traditions of Wales and the great traditions of the regiments of Wales themselves—this is a bad thing.
It is also bad for recruiting. Up till now, the best recruiting area in Britain has been Wales. Now, unfortunately, in some parts of the industrial areas of Wales unemployment is 17 per cent., as compared with 1·7 per cent. in London. These are the areas from which some of the finest infantry has come; yet we are going to jettison that at this stage, this quite uncertain stage in Welsh affairs, and we are going to risk having but few recruits from Wales. It beats me! I just cannot understand a situation of this kind, where you need good soldiers and you have the opportunity of good soldiers who want to serve in their own regiments with their own kith and kin. I do not understand why the sort of thing envisaged should happen. But there it is. I suppose that, whatever we say, Parliament will approve this policy.
I would ask only one thing, and I do not expect at all to be given a favourable answer. It is that if this foolish and wicked policy of killing the Welch Regiment, merging it in with the South Wales Borderers and making two regiments in the Welsh Brigade, which is no longer a truly Welsh brigade, is maintained, I hope that it will not be done until after the investiture of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, at Caernarvon on July 1. This ceremony
856
is an ancient one; it is the greatest event of its kind for decades, and will be no doubt for decades to come. It will be many years before there is such an important ceremony in Wales. It will be wicked and an insult to the Prince and to Wales if they destroy one of the three Welsh regiments before that takes place.
His investiture will mark a great stage in the history of Wales, and between then and now—and it is less than two years off—to destroy one of our Welsh regiments will make a mockery of the whole thing. I ask the Government not to destroy the Regiment, at all events until after the investiture, so that the Welch Regiment (which is my regiment) can be on parade with the Colours on this most important date in our history. I would ask, with all my heart, that the Government should not do this wicked thing until at least the Regiment has the opportunity and the honour of being present with our Colours at the Investiture of His Royal Highness.
3.52 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I feel great sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord who has just spoken, but I shall, as my noble friend has said, address myself to-day purely to the Order concerning the Royal Air Force. I associate myself entirely with the tributes he and the Minister have both paid to the officers and men in all the Forces, who continually win and deserve our admiration. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for moving these Orders, which we naturally support. But arising from a Continuation Order which deals with manpower, I should like to ask questions which were asked, and never answered—perhaps they might have been answered to-day but they were not specifically answered—at the end of last summer, relating to a reduction of 22 per cent. in the R.A.F. over the next eight years. This is taken, of course, from the White Paper, Cmnd. 3357, under the heading of "Service Manpower" on page 9. The Government's statement is clear in this respect: That the Royal Air Force will be reduced between 1967 and 1971 from 124,110 to 110,500, and that this reduction will be continued at the same rate in the following four years. This means that in 1971 27,000 fewer officers and men will be serving in the Royal Air Force.

857
What has never been explained, in spite of Opposition invitations to explain it, is how the R.A.F. are to fulfil their part in our obligations—and indeed in greater obligations than they have now, once the carriers are withdrawn—when their numbers have been so drastically reduced. It has not even been explained how they are to fly and maintain the aircraft which we expect to have during those years. Will the noble Lord say something in explanation of that to-day? I have given him notice that I should ask this question. We know that no personnel will be required to fly and maintain the Anglo-French V.G. aircraft, once the core of the Government's long-term programme, because that aircraft is now not to be built. But I understand that the Government's hopes remain high, or fairly high, of producing a substitute of some sort which will also require manpower—and highly trained manpower at that.
Since these figures were announced we have had a right to ask. Are there to be fewer aircraft to fly and maintain than Her Majesty's Government have in fact forecast? There is one fairly ominous indication of this with regard to the Phantom. On December 21, 1966, in an answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place, Mr. Healey said [col. 325]:
"The Defence Review indicated a requirement for about 200 Phantom aircraft for the two Services. Over three-quarters of these have already been ordered."
On November 9, 1967, in a Written Answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place Mr. Healey said [col. 159]:
"The total Phantom order is for 170 aircraft and these are due to be delivered in 1968 and 1969."
That is a reduction of 30 aircraft not specifically announced as such in any Government statement. But that would still not explain a reduction of anything like 27,000 officers and men. What may be significant is that in a recent Transport House publication Labour's First Three Years, we find a proud boast:
"Resources have been switched from Defence to the Social Services, which is the right priority for a Socialist Government."
Leaving aside the fact that this Government do not seem to have made the country very much happier by this process of stinting the Armed Forces, I would point out that those Forces stand in pro
858
tection of all the social services and those who benefit, and I would ask what this transfer will consist of. Here is a figure directly related to manpower. Since the Labour Government assumed power in the autumn of 1964, over 60,000 additional civil servants have been taken on to the national pay-roll. Can we be sure that the reductions in the Armed Services will be reflected in at least the same proportion in the Ministry of Defence? It seems improbable that the noble Lord can give such an undertaking to-day, because this is a Government which, to our witness, will joyfully deplete the Fighting Services and inflate every "empire" within the ambit of Whitehall. We think that this Government's priorities have become pretty distorted along the road.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I make a slight interjection?—and I hope I am not out of order. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, he referred to recruiting areas as being "satisfactory". May I ask if that applies to the Highland area? In the past, recruits joined a regiment. Now I understand that is not so easy; it is a question of joining "the Army". I am rather diffident about mentioning that because my own regiment, so far as I can see, has not been touched, but it would be interesting to know whether the noble Lord's reference to "satisfactory" recruiting areas still applies to the Highland area.
3.57 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I rise to intervene since I was a member of the Select Committee which sat during 1953 and 1954 and recommended the change of procedure that is exemplified by the Orders we are now discussing. I remember, and the noble Viscount, Lord Monsell, will remember, the old days when we had the annual debate on the Army Act, sitting through the night. He had a great responsibility at that time as during several of those years he was Chief Whip for the Government. As the House may know, we unanimously came to the conclusion that what was required was to get away from the annual debate, nearly always going through the night, and to have these periodic Orders, perhaps on a narrower basis than would have applied to the annual debate on the Army or Air Force Acts. Therefore, I think that the recommendations that we made were

859
valuable, and I feel that nothing has been lost by the change of procedure which is exemplified this afternoon.
I should like to make one or two points. I had a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord who spoke from the Liberal Benches in his emotional outburst with regard to the Welsh Regiments. Like himself and like other Members of this House, I have served in a regiment, and one becomes very attached to it: one's loyalty is developed in that regiment and its name. But this feeling is not restricted to the Welsh Regiments. I agree with him that they have as good a fighting record as any of the regiments from Scotland or from England, but these changes have taken place both in Scotland and in Wales.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—and I make no complaint of this; I am delighted—that, in fact, the Scottish Division remains intact with a Highland Brigade and a Lowland Brigade?—and good luck to both of them. I am pointing out that the Welsh Brigade no longer exists as such, and there will in future be no individual Welsh Brigade because it will be lumped into what is, in fact, an English Division.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I certainly appreciate that point of view, but I am not in a position to reply as to whether or not the recruitment from Wales would have been sufficient to maintain the establishment of a Welsh Brigade. That is a matter which can be answered only by a Minister from the Defence Ministry. All I am saying is that I share the noble Lord's feelings, and I wish the position could have been otherwise.
The other point to which I should like to refer is one that has been raised before in the House—and it was raised again this afternoon by the noble Lord who spoke first from the Opposition Benches—and concerns Malta. I am bound to say that it will seem to me very odd that there should be any question of bringing troops back to this country, unless there is an adequate supply of married quarters, for example, in the United Kingdom. In the days when I was Air Minister shortly after the war, there were numbers of R.A.F. personnel
860
who lived in caravans, but we are now 20 years on and there should be no necessity for that to happen in 1967 and 1968. I associate myself with what the noble Lord said, and I hope that my noble friend will go back to the Department and satisfy himself—and I hope that the Minister of Defence will also satisfy himself—that it really is a practical proposition to bring back all those troops; and that there will be no difficulty about providing married quarters, or barrack accommodation for the single men. Failing that, I think there are political reasons which might make it well worth while stationing anything up to a brigade in Malta. The accommodation is there. Like myself, the noble Lord has seen the quarters and visited them officially, and we know exactly the high standard that was maintained. For the various reasons which I have enumerated, I hope that this matter will be reconsidered, with a view to making use of the accommodation existing in Malta.
I thought my noble friend made a very encouraging statement with regard to the discipline of the Forces, and perhaps not quite so encouraging a statement with regard to recruitment. The ordeal of our soldiers in Aden, for example, is a magnificent testimony to their conduct and discipline, and I believe that we can be proud of them. I am quite sure that my noble friend will not mind my going out of my way to make a special reference to the Northumberland Fusiliers, who come from the county of my birth, and to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who come from the country of my father's birth. They were two of the finest battalions in the British Army and I think they did a magnificent job, as I am sure did any other battalion under similar circumstances.
As regards recruitment, I do not know whether my noble friend can answer the points which have been put to him. But I am not going to go into the wide sweep made by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. This is not a defence debate, and I am quite sure that the noble Lord does not really expect anyone to deal with the rather sweeping arguments which he put. However, he could be answered, and I should have great joy in doing it, perhaps on another occasion. But the noble Lord

861
put one or two very good, practical questions, and I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to give a satisfactory reply. Apart from that, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on his statement.
4.5 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, may I just raise one very short point? I feel that it is rather a dull point, after the very interesting speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, and others. It stems directly from the tone of the Minister's remarks, and not from any particular one. He told us that the discipline of the Forces was good. That is very good to hear; and, indeed, it is amply supported by the evidence of the news as we read it from day to day in our papers and see it on television. The noble Lord also referred to court-martial procedure and made the statement (I paraphrase it) that the House would feel satisfied that it was a procedure that was fair to the accused. Later, another noble Lord mentioned the question of a review of court-martial procedure in the future, and particularly mentioned a look being taken at the division between civil offences and offences under the Service Acts.
The question which I should like to ask is this. As one with a great deal of experience of court-martial procedure I, in common with many of your Lordships, know that it is very much slanted in the direction of the accused. This is something which is quite proper, and it is done deliberately, because at courts-martial the judges are men who have no great learning of the law. They have legal advice but they are not trained judges, and that is the chief reason why the procedure is slanted very definitely in favour of the accused. But can the Minister assure us that when the court-martial procedure is reviewed again there will be in mind not only the need to ensure that the procedure is fair to the accused, but also the need to ensure that in bad times as well as good the discipline of the Forces will be safeguarded by the construction of the Act?
4.8 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the House will agree with my
862
noble friend Lord Rowley, that to-day is not perhaps an occasion when we should have a mini-debate on the White Paper. But I will answer as many of the points put to me as I can, and I should like to start with the plea of the no ale Lord, Lord Ogmore, for the Welch Regiment, which I would link with a question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, about the date when the new divisional system is to be introduced. It has been announced in both Houses (I believe that in this House it was announced by my noble friend Lord Chalfont) that the reorganisation of the infantry divisions will take place by 1969, but details of how this will be done are not yet finalised. Turning to Wales, all disbandments announced are to take place by 1971. The date of amalgamation of the Welch Regiment and the South Wales Borderers is not yet firm. But I will make certain that the noble Lord's strong plea, which was endorsed in other parts of the House, is brought to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and I am certain that it will receive sympathetic consideration.
Turning to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, I have what is perhaps an unsatisfactory reply to one item. I am afraid that Her Majesty's Government cannot review their attitude to Malta. The statement made in the 1957 Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy must still hold. But, of course, as noble Lords will remember, the programme of reductions in Malta will not be completed before the end of 1971, so there is a reasonable period for adjustment—adjustment both in employment and in adaptation to changing circumstances.
It will not be necessary to use Malta to house returning Forces on a temporary basis because—and here I believe I am able to give the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, a rather more satisfactory picture—from February, 1966, until the middle of this month 3,151 houses had been purchased or were in the process of being purchased for married quarters, and a further 2,024 will be purchased during the next six months. In addition, there are 400 fully furnished hirings, and 150 caravans have also been bought as an emergency standby, although I am

863
glad to be able to tell the House that substantially less than all of these 150 caravans are occupied. If I may say so, this aspect of the operation for rehousing the families of returning soldiers has gone surprisingly well. Looking forward to the return of further units in the future, this programme, too, is going reasonably well. We are not complacent, but we are reasonably satisfied that the units still to return will be well housed. I myself have a direct responsibility for the barrack services, and having visited three of the major centres I can say that things are really going quite well.
May I turn now to the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, which was also touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, that is, the question of the revision of the Army Act. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a very full statement on the subject in another place on October 25. He said that when the Army Act was next reviewed consideration would be given to redefining the respective civil and military procedure. This is a little way ahead—nearly five years ahead—and I hope noble Lords will agree with me that the need for legislation is not urgent. A flaw in the existing system was brought to light in connection with the case of Leslie Parkes, which many of your Lordships will remember, but this was in many respects a unique case and we have been able to take administrative steps to avoid another of its kind pending revision of the Act. I am certain that my right honourable friend will bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has said about getting a proper balance between the need for discipline and the need for justice towards the accused. I think that covers the Army points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I raised one point about the number of troops that have already come back, and the number that are coming back in the next few months.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Yes. I cannot give the exact total figures, but I can tell the noble Lord that 19 units are to return in the course of the next six months and that arrangements for the
864
necessary barracks and works services for their return are going satisfactorily.
Now may I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald? I think he rather confused the issue by comparing the growth of the Civil Service with the reduction of the size of the Royal Air Force. It is rather difficult to answer in precise figures his implication that the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy provides for a reduction of 22 per cent. in the R.A.F. in the next eight years. I assume that the figures he is drawing on are those on page 9 of the Supplementary Statement.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Page 9 and the following page, too.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord will I think recall that separate figures were not quoted for the second four years under review. They were quoted for the first four years under review, from 1967 to 1971, but no figures were quoted for 1971 to 1975.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am not trying to confuse the noble Lord any further. The words are:
"The reductions in the later years should be broadly similar for each Service to those to be made by April, 1971".
That is rather clearer than the Government are in most of their statements.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I can confirm that the noble Lord's supposition is right in general terms. It is expected that the reductions in each Service will be broadly similar in each period, and to that extent I must agree that the inference drawn by the noble Lord is not unreasonable. But I can assure him that all the manpower reductions shown in this part of the Defence White Paper faithfully reflect the best estimates that could be made at the time of the consequences of the far-reaching Defence policy and deployment decisions which were also announced in that Paper.
The figures to which the noble Lord has referred also reflected the reductions in manpower expected to come from the changes in command structure and the streamlining of support services mentioned in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Defence White Paper. The Royal Air Force is confident that, provided every effort is made to recruit and retain the highly-skilled manpower required by the present-day, and even more by the future,

865
Royal Air Force, it will indeed be able to discharge the duties laid on it by the Defence White Paper with the numbers which are shown in the manpower estimates.
Turning to the numbers of aircraft, I am glad to say that here I can give the noble Lord a precise, if unsatisfactory, answer. I understand from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the figure of 200 "Phantoms" mentioned by him was never intended to be precise. It was based on a firm order for aircraft with options that could or need not be taken up as events turned out. The size of the buy was from the beginning always referred to as "about" 200 and not as a firm 200; and as long ago as last March the Secretary of State went out of his way to say that 200 was not a precise figure. By contrast, the figure of 170 is precise, and represents the exact number that will be bought. Therefore, so far as "Phantoms" are concerned, there will be a smaller number of these aircraft in service than was originally foreseen, and this, of course, must be reflected in the figure for the manpower needed to service them.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have paid their tribute to the Armed Forces. If, in the difficult conditions of contraction mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, we are able to maintain recruiting at its present reasonably satisfactory levels, then I am convinced that we can maintain the Armed Forces at the very high standard of competence and readiness at which they are to-day.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIR FORCE ACT 1955 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1967
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move the second Order standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Draft Air Force Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1967, laid before the House on October 31, be be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
4.20 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of this House which may arise from time to time, and whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered to effect such alterations; and that the Lords following with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Jellicoe,

E. Longford,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Colville of Culross,

V. Dilhorne,

V. Goschen,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Byers,

L. Caccia,

L. Carrington,

L. Champion,

L. Henderson,

L. Henley,

L. Merthyr,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Rea,

L. Saltoun,

L. Shackleton,

L. Shepherd,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang,

L. Wade,

L. Willis,

L. Wilberforce,

B. Wootton of Abinger. —(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 65, a Committee for Privileges be appointed, and that the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committes and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Dundee,

E. Longford,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Dilhorne,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Carrington,

L. Champion,

L. Conesford,

L. Ogmore,

L. Rea,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang. —(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in the absence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in the present Session a Committee of twelve Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee to consider the following classes of Bills:—

(1) All Consolidation Bills, whether public or private;

(2) Statute Law Revision Bills;

(3) Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949 together with any memoranda laid pursuant to that Act and any representations made with respect thereto;

(4) Bills to consolidate any enactments with amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions together with any report containing such recommendations:

That the Lords following be named of the Committee:—

V. Colville of Culross,

V. Brentford,

L. Rathcreedan,

L. Cawley,

L. Meston,

L. Guest,

L. Ilford,

L. Upjohn,

L. Royle,

L. Segal,

L. Wells-Pestell,

L. Lloyd of Hampstead.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to desire them to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
FORTH HARBOUR REORGANISATION SCHEME CONFIRMATION (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) 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.

NEW TOWNS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This is a Consolidation Bill and will be referred to the Joint Committee in the usual way.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

LEGITIMATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.23 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, this Bill is based on the Report of the Scottish Law Commission Reform of the Law Relating to Legitimation per subsequens matrimonium, published in April of this year. I am sure your Lordships would wish me right at the outset to express appreciation to Lord Kilbrandon and the rest of the Commissioners for the trouble they took in preparing this excellent survey of the law on this matter and for the clarity with which they expressed their proposals for its reform. This is the first substantial Report of the Scottish Law Commission to be published, and I hope that noble Lords will give the Government credit for taking this early opportunity to introduce the Bill. It should be seen as a token of the Government's determination, with the help of the Law Commissions, to effect necessary reforms of our laws as quickly as possible.
The main change in the law recommended by the Commission and effected by the Bill is the removal of a restriction which, in certain circumstances, at present prevents an illegitimate person from being legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents. The Law of Scotland has always accepted the principle that a child Dorn before the marriage of its parents is legitimated when the marriage takes place. But to this principle the law admits a major exception. If the parents, because of some impediment to marriage, could not have married at the time of the child's conception or (though there is some doubt about this) at the time of its birth, then their subsequent marriage does not legitimate the child. The most common impediment is, of course, that at the time one at least of the parents was married to someone else. The Legitimacy Act 1959 removed the comparable bar to legitimation under the law of England and Wales. The Bill removes the bar for Scotland.
The arguments in favour of removing the bar are set out in the Law Commission's Memorandum and a brief reference to them here will, I hope, suffice.
870
First, there is the general social argument that to allow certain children, but not others, to be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents is neither logical nor just. If parents of illegitimate children—and here I should like to say that I think the correct term, though not the legal one, is the illegitimate parents of children—are willing to regularise their own position by marriage it seems reasonable to allow the position of the children (who have, after all, no control over the circumstances of their conception or birth) to be regularised at the same time.
Secondly, there is the question of legal policy. This is a field in which I, for one, should be loth to claim to speak with authority. I am glad, therefore, to say that the Law Commission have made it possible for me to avoid the need to do so by giving it as their considered view that there are no considerations of legal policy which would argue against the removal of the existing bar. Thirdly, the Commission have made a comparative study of the law of legitimation by subsequent marriage in a number of countries outside Scotland. As they have shown in their Report, in the majority of countries which recognise this form of legitimation (including England and Northern Ireland) the bar does not exist.
The Government fully accept the views of the Law Commission on this matter, and Clause 1 of the Bill gives effect for the future to the change in the law which they have recommended. The Registrar General has estimated that the effect of this clause, if it becomes law, would be to permit the legitimation of about fifty children a year the marriage of whose pa rents would not, as the law stands at present, allow them to be legitimated. Clause 5 of the Bill regularises the position of persons who because of the existence of the present restriction are not regarded as legitimated, despite the fait that their parents have married at some time in the past. The Registrar General has estimated that there may be up to 3,000 potential applicants for the re-registration of birth that would be made possible by this clause.
As your Lordships will recall, however, the Scottish Law Commission did not confine themselves to a simple recommendation that the present law should be amended in the matter of the removal

871
of the existing bar to legitimation by subsequent marriage. They noted in their Memorandum that there were a number of unsatisfactory features about the present Common Law in relation to legitimation by subsequent marriage, and they made in their Report a number of very useful proposals with a view to the law, amended as they proposed in relation to the removal of the bar, being restated in a comprehensive way. It is with this amendment, restatement and clarification of the law of legitimation by subsequent marriage as a whole that the remainder of the Bill is concerned.
As your Lordships will see, these provisions of the Bill are necessarily very detailed, but since much of it is a restatement of the existing law I propose to confine my remarks, at this stage, at any rate, to the main changes effected in the present law. The main change to which I would draw your Lordships' attention is the removal of the present legal fiction in Scots law that legitimation confers legitimate status retrospectively with effect from the child's date of birth. The fiction finds its origins in the Canon Law which offered as a doctrinal justification of legitimation by subsequent marriage the view that the marriage took effect retroactively by a fiction of the law from the date of conception; and thus the children were regarded as legitimate from their birth. As the Law Commission point out, however, this is nowadays little more than a legal fiction. The Scottish courts have criticised the fiction and have held, for example, that property rights of third parties cannot be affected by the fiction of retroactive legitimation.
Since the publication of their Report the Law Commission have in fact told us that further study has led them to the view that at present the fiction of retroactive legitimation has no practical effect whatsoever and has confirmed them in the view expressed in their Report that it should be abolished. This is effected by Clause 1 and Clause 3(1) of the Bill which, broadly speaking, provide that a subsequent marriage will legitimate children of the parties with effect from the date of the marriage.
Secondly, the Bill clarifies the existing law on the question of domicile. There is no doubt under Scots law at present that for a child to be legitimated by the
872
subsequent marriage of his parents his father must have been domiciled at the time of the marriage in a country in which legitimation by this means is permitted by law. There is doubt, however, whether the father must in addition have been domiciled in such a country at the time of the child's conception or birth. This is a highly technical question, but the view which the Law Commission came to in their Report was that for the purposes of determining whether a person is regarded as legitimate under Scots law the question of the father's place of domicile at the date of the child's birth or conception should be irrelevant and the law of the father's domicile at the time of the subsequent marriage should be decisive. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill give effect to this recommendation.
The third change effected by the Bill is in relation to the law concerning rights of representation. It is still an open question in Scots law whether the issue of an illegitimate person who predeceased his parents' marriage can take rights as if their parent had been legitimated by the marriage. The Commission recommended that the law should be clarified by a provision that in such a case the issue should be treated as if their parent, although deceased, had been legitimated from the date of the marriage, and Clause 4 of the Bill provides accordingly.
The remaining provisions of the Bill deal with the recognition of legitimations effected under foreign law generally, with the scope of rights and obligations arising on legitimation—where regard has been had to the Law Commission's view that the legitimation of a child should not operate to the prejudice of property rights of third parties—with the interpretation of deeds and the interpretation, extent and commencement of the Act. My Lords, I do not propose to go into the detail of these provisions, but if any noble Lords have any questions about them I shall try to deal with them later to-day, or alternatively, by letter as soon as possible after to-day's debate.
Finally, I should recall for your Lordships' convenience that when the Law Commission's Report was published, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in another place that he and the Lord Advocate were studying it with a view to legislation; and he added that he would be glad to receive any

873
comments which interested persons or organisations might wish to make. I should report to your Lordships that there has been no response to this invitation. The Law Commission's own consultations during their study of the law led them to an understanding that the legal profession in Scotland would welcome the main change effected by the Bill. I hope this useful Bill will commend itself also to your Lordships, and I beg to move that it now be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a,.—(Lord Hughes.)
4.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the very clear and brief manner in which he has expounded this Bill. As he has rightly said, it has always been part of the law of Scotland that illegitimate children should be legitimised by the subsequent marriage of their parents. I think that it would be a more complete description of the position to say that this has always been the law of all Christian countries except England which, for some reason, was an exception to it. The English Church and the English Crown tried to bring England into line with the rest of Christendom at the Council of Merton in 1234, but the English Barons replied with the famous phrase:
"Nolumus leges Angliae mutari."
I will translate that for the benefit of those of your Lordships who were educated at Eton. It means:
"We do not wish the laws of England to be changed."
In fact they were not changed until 1926, when a new English Act was passed bringing the law into accord with that which already existed in Scotland.
But there was one exception brought into the English Act of 1926. Section 10 of that Act provides that:
"Nothing in this Act shall affect the succession to any dignity or title of honour or render any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title."
Of course, that exception never applied in Scotland, either to the succession to a peerage or, indeed, to the succession to the Throne. The grandson of King Robert the Bruce, Robert Stuart, first had
874
an illegitimate son by Elizabeth Muir of Rowallan in 1337. He married her ten years later, in 1347, which legitimised their son. Later, I think in 1371, he succeeded his uncle as King of Scotland, as King Robert the Second and his legitimised son became Heir to the Throne and afterwards succeeded as King Robert the Third in 1390; and our present Royal House are descended from him. So there has never been any doubt about the fact that legitimisation by the subsequent marriage of parents does not affect the succession to titles.
There have been many cases in our own lifetime in which there have been two different claimants to a peerage, one of whom was born out of wedlock, and the case has always turned upon whether at the time of his parents' marriage his father had been a domiciled Scotsman. I have no doubt that the Scottish law is right; that it is socially convenient and right that legitimation by subsequent marriage of parents should not exclude a child from succeeding to his father's position. But it does, I think, become a little more complicated when, as the noble Lord mentioned, never in Scottish law had legitimation by subsequent marriage been legal if at the time of birth, or of conception, as the case might be, the parents would not have been able to marry because either had been married to someone else or for any other reason.
I think one has to look very much more carefully at the position, not only in regard to the succession to a peerage but in regard to the succession to entailed property if there is a possibility that a man and woman who may both be married to somebody else have an affair and produce a son. The father, by his legitimate wife, may have several sons who are brought up in the natural expectation that they will succeed to a piece of property or a title; and then, perhaps years afterwards, both the father and the mother may obtain divorces and become married to each other, and if they could prove, as they might be able to do, that the child which had been born while they were both married to somebody else was in fact the son of the real father and not of the woman's husband, the child could then cut out those who had always been brought up to expect that they would succeed to whatever property or functions might be in question.
The Scottish Law Commission, my Lords, is a very learned body and knows far more about this subject than I do, and I should always hesitate to argue against any of their recommendations. But I am a little regretful that they have produced this Bill, because I always feel that when the law of Scotland is clearly superior to the law of England it is far better to leave things as they are. I am not sure that in all respects this is going to be an improvement.
The noble Lord mentioned that the English Act of 1959 took this step of the legitimisation of a child whose parents had not been able to marry at the time of the child's birth but, owing to divorce or some other reason, were able to get married afterwards. In that Act the proviso was continued that this change in the law should not affect the right of succession to any title or dignity. Yesterday evening I tried to confirm these matters by telephoning St. Andrew's House, because I wanted to be sure of them, and the noble Lord has been kind enough to write to me this morning. I am grateful for the promptness with which he has grasped the points and replied. He has drawn my attention in his letter to Clause 3(6) of the Bill, which deals with the seniority of legitimated persons. Your Lordships will see that legitimated persons will have seniority only from the date of the subsequent marriage or, in the case of persons legitimated by Clause 5 of the Bill, from the date when the Bill becomes law. Thus, the noble Lord observes in his letter to me to-day:
"If there is already an heir apparent to the title and an older illegitimate son who, because of the restrictions on legitimacy, has not been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents, the illegitimate son, on being legitimated under the Bill, will not replace the heir apparent, he will remain junior to him".
That was not clear to me from the Bill until I got the noble Lord's letter, because it refers to "members of a class of persons". I suppose that includes Peers and heirs to Peerages, but it was not obvious to me to begin with.
I would like a little clarification of this. First of all, I take it that this would cut out the legitimate heir, not of the father himself but, if he had a brother or nephew, his heir presumptive, who for a long time would have been expecting to succeed to the Peerage. Of course, it might be said that the heir presumptive
876
can be excluded at any time by the marriage of the holder of the title, who might marry unexpectedly and have a son. But that is not quite the same thing as bringing forward an illegitimate son born by somebody else's wife long ago at a time when they could not have married. I am not going to pursue this matter, but I would like your Lordships to understand what we are doing before we agree to pass this Bill without any amendment.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, argued the Bill entirely on the right grounds, on the grounds of convenience and advantage to society. He did not use the word "stigma", which I think is always a mistake, because if we say that we make people legitimate in order to remove a stigma, it seems to me that we are acknowledging the existence of a stigma on hundreds and thousands of other illegitimate children who never can be legitimated because their parents are never going to marry. There never should be any kind of stigma on any illegitimate child. However much we may agree or disagree about the conduct of his parents, it must be plain to everybody that there cannot be any sort of adverse stigma attached to any illegitimate child, and we should not legislate on a false basis of snobbery of that kind. I do not think there was really any stigma about illegitimacy until quite modern times. Two hundred or 300 years ago people were often proud to have a bar sinister and show it in their coat of arms. In one of Shakespeare's plays, King John, the Bastard is the hero. I do not believe that the word "bastard" had any sort of pejorative implication until quite modern times. I think that this is a false piece of morality altogether.
What we want to do is to devote ourselves in this Bill to the convenience and advantages of society, which I think the noble Lord has done. I only want to make sure that your Lordships understand that by this legislation which we are now about to pass we will make it possible—and I await the noble Lord's elucidation of this with interest—in some cases for legitimate heirs to a peerage or to an old estate to be displaced by persons who have been born at a time when one or both of their parents were married to somebody else.
4.47 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, as some sort of representative of a country which

877
has rejoiced in the social habit of hand-fasting for centuries and whose figures of illegitimate births must be extraordinarily high, if my knowledge of the people is worth anything, I certainly welcome this Bill. The only point I wish to emphasise a little is the point already made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I would just mention the position and ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to take this into consideration. At the present time if a Peer or an heir to a Peerage who subsequently succeeds to it has a child by a woman whom he is not in a position to marry, that child cannot become heir to the Peerage; if they are in a position to marry and subsequently do so, he can succeed.
The position is very cleverly taken care of in Clause 3(6)(a) and I admire the way it is done, but I do not think that the position is altogether covered. In seeking to remove all disabilities connected with his or her birth from a legitimated person, I am entirely in favour of the Bill, but I think that it should be done so as not to do a wrong to other parties by reason of that legitimisation. Under the law of Scotland to-day, such a person, if legitimised by this Bill, may become heir to a Peerage. Supposing that legitimated person was the only child of the newly-married people and the heir was the son of a brother, it seems to me that this Bill cuts out the nephew in favour of the newly legitimated son. I think that that is wrong, because by reason of this legitimisation a wrong is being done to an outside party who has nothing to do with the matter.
Having made that point, and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, having nodded his head in agreement, I ask him to look at that again, because if this subsequent marriage has later children, or if there are any earlier children of the marriage, their position is perfectly well taken care of, but no thought is given to outside third parties who have nothing to do with the family matter and are dispossessed by the passage of this Bill.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I believe that in Australia if you call a man a bastard, and especially an old bastard, it is a term of endearment; but, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said, this is not wholly true in England. It is on this point that I want to ask the
878
noble Lord, Lord Hughes, a question. I seem to remember as long ago as forty years back taking part in the other place in a kindly Bill which produced a new form of birth certificate, so that a child who was born illegitimately and subsequently grew up and applied for a job did not have to show a birth certificate which demonstrated this fact, but could produce a birth certificate which avoided demonstrating it. I want to ask the noble Lord whether the Scottish law is the same and is as kind as the law of England in this matter now, and if not, whether when a birth certificate is issued—and I suppose it will have to be amended in the record when the child becomes legitimated under the Bill—it will have to be exposed to any employer, or anyone else, showing that the person is illegitimate, or whether a document can be devised which will not show that. I think it is a kindly point that needs attention.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the clear way in which he has introduced this not entirely uncomplicated matter. I think this is a good Bill, because in the majority of simple cases there is some impediment which prevents the child from becoming a full member of the family. I must admit that I thought the date was the date of birth, but I readily give way to the noble Lord, if he thinks there is some doubt and that it should be the date of conception. I am sure it is in the interests of the child that this should be the case.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that curious ramifications may take place. I should have thought that, on the whole, on the question of succession, the matter was fairly clear and there was not much doubt about it. I suppose it is true that people could take advantage of this Bill. For instance, there may be somebody very anxious to get a son, and he may go on trying, if I may so put it, with different people until he does get a son, and when he does, he then arranges to marry the appropriate mother. It may seem an extreme case, and it may be playing a little fast and loose with the Bill, but this is a remote possibility. But, even so, in my view the benefits which the Bill brings to the normal relationship far outweigh the example that I have given, and I certainly support the general lines of the Bill.
4.53 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for the generous support they have given to the Bill. If I may first of all reply to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, I can assure him that the law of Scotland in the matter of an abbreviated birth certificate is no less kind to these people than the English law is. Abbreviated birth certificates do apply in Scotland also.
The only other point which has been raised is the matter to which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, referred. It is perfectly true that the Bill will replace an heir presumptive by the legitimated person who may then become, in the terms of the Bill, an heir apparent. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, quoted the case of a nephew who for many years might have expected to succeed, and then discovers that his place can be taken by a newly legitimated son. But this is not new. Those who can presently be legitimated by subsequent marriage in Scotland do take precedence over an heir presumptive. After all, he is only an heir presumptive on the basis that it exists all along that a son can be born who would deprive him of his rights. What we are seeking to do, therefore, is to give justice as between one illegitimate child and another. It is not anything the first child has done which merits an advantage being conferred on him; or, alternatively, it is not anything that the second child, whose parents were not free to marry at the time of his birth, has done which requires him to suffer any disadvantage.
What we have done is to make certain that a person who has been the heir apparent will not be deprived of his rights, and that the illegitimate person, in the circumstances of this Bill, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has been good enough to say from the reading of my letter, will take rights only as from the date of the marriage, and he is therefore assumed (to put it in lay language rather than legal language) to have been born at that date, and any sons, although born to him subsequently, who have been born of the first legal marriage remain in precedence over him.
LORD SALTOUN: If the noble Lord will give me a moment afterwards I can explain my point more clearly to him, because I have a point. I do not want to interrupt any more.
LORD HUGHES: I presume that when the noble Lord says "afterwards" he means after the debate has concluded. If he wants to talk inside the debate he will have to do it now.
LORD SALTOUN: No.
LORD HUGHES: I was intensely interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said about the past history of this matter. I had not realised that we had carried an advantage in generosity in this matter over the English for so many years. If, in fact, Scottish law has been more Christian and civilised for 700 years, we have to accept that for the last seven years the English have been in advance of us. We are now seeking to put the position back into its proper perspective, and by adopting what we do here, we not only catch up with the position which was established in England and Wales seven or eight years ago, but once again we go—and I think quite properly—a little ahead of them in seeking, so far as it is possible to do, not to inflict injustice as between classes of people when nothing they themselves have done has merited any such injustice being done to them.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSULAR RELATIONS BILL [H.L.]
4.58 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is quite simple, but, as in so many cases, when one seeks to draft a measure one ends up with a highly technical Bill. This is certainly one of those cases. If I were to explain all the clauses in detail I fear that I should make a very long and burdensome speech. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will deal with the main provisions of the Bill, and if any questions

881
are raised later on other clauses I can either deal with them in reply or on the Committee stage.
My Lords, Parliament has always been concerned about the increase of privileges and immunities, particularly within the Diplomatic Service. I think one should make it quite clear that these privileges and immunities do not mean that those who enjoy them can ride roughshod over the laws of the land. As I said on Tuesday, all persons entitled to diplomatic immunity are under a duty to respect the laws and regulations of the State in which they serve. The immunities accorded to Consuls are intended to give them a degree of protection from the jurisdiction of the receiving State necessary to enable them to perform their functions effectively and without hindrance; immunity from jurisdiction in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.
I think I should stress that the immunities in this Bill are more limited than those of the Diplomatic Service. These immunities of which I have spoken also reflect the sovereign immunity of the State on whose behalf the functions are performed. A Consul should always be treated with special courtesy and respect due to an official agent of another State. Fiscal privileges derive from the principles that a Government should not tax another Government through its representatives, and a Government should not seek to gain a benefit from the presence in its territory of an agent of another Government for official purposes. Immunities and privileges are also based on the principle of reciprocity.
In considering immunities and privileges to be accorded to foreign Consuls in the United Kingdom, it must be borne in mind that there are places in the world and circumstances in which our interests and those of our nationals would be seriously prejudiced if consular posts and personnel were not accorded a special, protected status. But the main purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to enable effect to be given to certain other agreements entered into by the United Kingdom, and to make consequential provisions in relation to the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland.
882
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations codifies the general rules of International Law concerning consular relations immunities and privileges. It was adopted at a conference of some 92 States held in Vienna in 1963 under the auspices of the United Nations and entered into force on March 19, 1967. So far, 27 States have become parties by ratification or accession, and 33 others, including the United Kingdom, have signed the Convention but have not yet ratified it. This Convention, like the Vienna Convention of 1961 on Diplomatic Relations, to which effect was given by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, was based on a draft prepared by the International Law Commission, a body consisting of highly qualified legal experts representing the main legal systems of the world and charged under the Charter of the United Nations with the codification and progressive development of International Law. The United Kingdom has always supported and encouraged this work.
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is the counterpart in the consular field of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, but in drawing up the Consular Convention the International Law Commission and the Vienna Conference were faced with a task which was in many respects more difficult, because the rules of International Law were considerably less well developed, and the, practice of States was less uniform, in the consular than in the diplomatic field. The Convention to which this Bill gives effect therefore represents an important step in the process of codifying International Law. The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention and to claim the benefit of it for our consular posts in other countries.
The form of the Bill is similar to that of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, though unlike that Act it deals not only will privileges and immunities but with mach else besides. Following the precedent of the 1964 Act, subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill gives the force of law to those Articles of the Convention which are set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill. Many of the provisions of the Convention can be implemented by executive action and do not require legislation. The provisions for which legislation is

883
needed are those concerning the immunities and privileges of consular posts and persons connected with them.
There is very little existing legislation on the matters covered by the provisions in Schedule 1. The immunities and privileges at present accorded to foreign consuls in this country depend very largely on the Common Law doctrine that International Law is part of the law of the land, and on administrative practice. The Bill, like the Convention, will therefore have the great merit of legislating in a field where hitherto there has been considerable room for uncertainty. There are, not surprisingly in the circumstances, some departures from existing practice, but I hope to satisfy the House that these should be accepted.
The nature of the innovations can best be appreciated by comparing the terms of the Vienna Convention with the rules accepted in the bilateral Consular Conventions entered into by the United Kingdom. In view of the previous state of uncertainty regarding the rules of International Law, and in order to ensure proper treatment for our consular posts overseas, we concluded between 1951 and 1965 14 Conventions with other States. In the matter of immunities and privileges these followed a fairly standard pattern, with minor variations only.
Before I refer to certain Articles of the Vienna Convention, I must draw your Lordships' attention to one important point. The Convention is divided into Chapters, as shown in Schedule 1 to the Bill. Chapter II, which begins at Article 31 on page 13, applies only to career consular officers and posts headed by them. Chapter III, which begins at Article 58, on page 21, applies to honorary Consuls and their posts. There is no definition of "career" and "honorary", but I understand that in practice there is no difficulty in distinguishing between them. Generally a career officer is one in full-time career employment of the sending State, whereas an honorary Consul is usually a local resident employed on a part-time basis only. What I now have to say about the immunities and privileges accorded by the Vienna Convention relates, unless I state otherwise, only to career Consuls.
I will deal first with the questions of inviolability and jurisdictional immuni.
884
ties As regards inviolability of premises, Article 31 in Schedule 1 imposes greater restrictions on the rights of the local authorities to enter consular premises than we have hitherto accepted. It provides that they may enter only with the consent of the appropriate officer of the sending State, though consent may be assumed
"in the case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective action".
In the matter of personal immunities, Consuls have usually not enjoyed the degree of immunity in respect of both official acts and private acts accorded to diplomatic agents, and the Vienna Convention preserves this distinction. Article 43 in Schedule 1 gives consular officers and employees immunity from jurisdiction only in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions. It does not extend to any acts of a private character; nor does it extend to third-party claims for damage caused by a vehicle, vessel or aircraft. This, therefore, is fully in accordance with our present practice.
There are, however, two respects in which the scheduled Articles give a greater degree of personal immunity than we have hitherto accorded. First, Article 41 provides that a consular officer shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and with a warrant. A "grave crime" is defined in Clause 1, subsection (2), as meaning:
"any offence punishable (on a first conviction) with imprisonment for a term that may extend to five years or with a more severe sentence".
Secondly, Article 44 provides in effect that when a consular officer declines to give evidence, even on a matter not connected with the exercise of his official functions, no coercive measures may be applied to him. He is not, however, relieved of his obligation to give evidence except where official matters are concerned, and should he fail to do so appropriate diplomatic action can be taken.
The Vienna Conference held that consular officers should be accorded the increased immunities which the Vienna Convention provides. Having regard to the conditions prevailing in many parts of the world to-day, I think your Lordships would accept that the immunities conferred by the Convention are not in excess

885
of those which consuls require to enable them to perform their duties effectively and without hindrance. Indeed, it seems increasingly doubtful whether they are not in effect unduly restrictive.
Turning now to the field of privileges, I would point out that the fiscal privileges provided by Article 32 concerning taxation of consular premises, by Article 49 on taxation of consular personnel and by Article 50 on exemption from customs duties are, in general, no more than those which we have been prepared to accord—indeed, have accorded—by our bilateral Conventions. The only addition of note is that under paragraph 2 of Article 49 members of the families of consular officers and employees will be entitled to certain tax exemptions not enjoyed by them hitherto.
However, the main effect of the Bill in the field of taxation will be to extend exemptions which hitherto have been granted only on the basis of a bilateral agreement to the consular posts and personnel of States with which we have not yet concluded such an agreement. But this is a necessary consequence of accepting the Vienna Convention as a codification of the general rules of international law, and it will, of course, bring reciprocal benefits to our posts and personnel in other countries. The exemptions involved include rating relief for consular premises and the residence of the head of a post under Article 32, exemption of consular officers and consular employees and members of their families from income tax on overseas income under Article 49, and continuing customs privileges for consular officers under Article 50.
I should like to say a few words here regarding rating relief. The relief accorded by Article 32 does not extend to such dues or taxes as represent payment for specific services rendered. This means that the posts and officers entitled to relief must nevertheless pay what has been known as the "beneficial" portion of the rates. This is the element in the rates which relates to the local services which are of direct benefit to the post or officer concerned. Furthermore, arrangements are made whereby the cost of the relief does not fall on the local authorities but is borne by the Treasury. The Treasury pay the authorities the full general rate on the premises and then recover the beneficial portion from the
886
occupier. These are the arrangements which apply in respect of Embassies and which were explained to the House when the Diplomatic Privileges Bill was before Parliament in 1964.
The position of honorary consulates and honorary consular officers is dealt with in Articles 58 to 67. These provisions involve only one important change, namely, the granting of rating relief in respect of consular premises. But this privilege applies only in cases where the consular post is owned or leased by the sending State. Most honorary consulates form part of the business or private premises of the consul concerned and would not be affected.
As I have said, the remaining part of the Bill is very highly technical and we could deal with this later in Committee. But I think I should say a few words before closing in regard to Clause 3. Clause 3 will enable effect to be given to agreements with other States providing for privileges and immunities additional to or less than those provided by the Vienna Convention. Subsection (1) provides for the case where a bilateral Convention accords privileges and immunities on a wider scale than the Vienna Convention. The limits within which additional privileges and immunities may be conferred under this subsection are specified in Schedule 2 of the Bill. It should also be noted that by Clause 14(1) the Order in Council necessary for this purpose will require an Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. The powers listed in Schedule 2 are all required to give effect to existing bilateral Consular Conventions. No powers beyond those necessary for this purpose are sought.
Subsection (2) is designed to cover the case of States with which an agreement has been concluded providing for less extensive privileges and immunities than those contemplated in the Vienna Convention. It is hoped that most States will agree to accord reciprocal treatment not less favourable than that provided in the Vienna Convention; but some States are not party to the Vienna Convention, and these may decline to do so in respect of particular matters.
I have referred to the fourteen Consular Conventions already concluded in what has hitherto been our standard form. These Conventions accord narrower

887
immunities but in some respects wider privileges than the Vienna Convention. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 will provide powers to enable effect to be given to these wider privileges. It is necessary that these Conventions should be retained in force because, unlike the Vienna Convention, they contain detailed provisions concerning the exercise of a wide range of consular functions, including the protection of nationals, the administration of estates, merchant shipping, and other matters. Similar Conventions will be negotiated in the future. In the matter of privileges and immunities future Conventions will naturally have regard to the Vienna Convention, but it may in the case of some countries be in the interests of the United Kingdom to negotiate some departures from the Vienna standard within the limits of the powers in Schedule 2.
Since 1965 we have signed two Conventions of a somewhat different kind, namely, those with the Soviet Union of December 2, 1965, and with Poland of February 16, 1967. Similar agreements are planned with other countries of Eastern Europe. None of the Conventions in this group, however, can be brought into force until the present Bill has become law and Orders in Council can be made under Clause 3. These Conventions contain the same provisions with regard to the exercise of consular functions and follow the same pattern with regard to privileges.
Where they differ is in relation to immunity. Provision is made for the reciprocal extension of a much greater degree of immunity from jurisdiction and personal inviolability for consular personnel, including members of consular families, and complete inviolability is given to consular premises and to the residences of consular officers. These departures from the usual standards are considered indispensable. It is essential in the countries concerned that consular personnel should receive the same full degree of protection as their diplomatic colleagues. Indeed, in some respects consular personnel working in the provinces require full protection even more than diplomats serving in the capital. Other Governments have concluded, or are in the process of concluding, agreements on similar lines; for example, during the
888
present year consular treaties have come into force between the U.S.S.R. and both Japan and the United States. My Lords, with those few words I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2.a.—(Lord Shepherd.2)
5.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having so clearly explained what is, as he said, a most complicated Bill. As he said, it gives effect to the Vienna Convention of April, 1963. I understand from the noble Lord that we did not in fact sign the Convention, but that we intend to accede to it once this Bill is passed. As I understand it, the procedure is closely in line with that followed by the Conservative Government, to give effect to the provisions of the other Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in 1961. Many of the provisions are the same and the language of the two Bills is similar, and we on this side of the House certainly see no objection to it in principle.
There are, however, a few questions that I should like to ask the noble Lord. Clause 3(1), which I think he mentioned, foresees that in certain circumstances a Government may grant to another Government consular privileges in addition to those laid down in the Vienna Convention. These possible additional privileges are, I see, listed in Schedule 2 and are of considerable scope. Then, as we heard, Clause 14(1) provides that such additional privilges may be offered only if the necessary Order in Council has been previously approved by Parliament.
I should like to ask the Government in what circumstances they believe that it may be desirable to grant to foreign consuls privileges wider than those agreed under the Convention. The Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 contained no such provision for additional privileges. I should like to ask the noble Lord to clarify that point a little further for us.
Secondly, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question which concerns the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke, who is in prison in the Soviet Union. Article 36(c) of the Convention, which the Russians signed, provides that consular officers

889
shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison. It is true that this provision is not among the Articles of the Convention which are quoted in the Schedules to the Bill. As the noble Lord knows, not all the Articles in the Convention are quoted in the Bill. This is a little confusing to me. But am I not right in saying that whatever our view of the Convention which the Russians have signed, the Soviet Government are in breach of accepted international practice in refusing such visits? I understood from the reply by the Under-Secretary of State in another place on November 6 that they certainly are in breach of such practice, as well as behaving in a most inhumane way.
Mrs. Brooke, who came to see me here yesterday and with whom we must all, I think, have the deepest sympathy, last saw her husband in February, 1966. She tells me that while she receives her husband's letters he is not allowed food parcels, although his health has always been such that he has tended to require a certain diet. And of course the consul has not been allowed to see him since last December. I am sure that in this case all your Lordships would like to be associated with a further urgent appeal to the Soviet Government to release Mr. Brooke; but that if he is not released, he should be treated in a humane way and, if he is ill, as one report has it, that he should be given the appropriate medical treatment.
Having visited the Soviet Union on various occasions and knowing a number of distinguished Russians, including First Secretary Brezhnev and many others in official diplomatic, scientific and even Parliamentary circles, I hope that your Lordships will join with me in making this further appeal. I know that representations have been made in the highest quarters; that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, our Ambassador, Sir Alec Douglas Home, and others in another place have taken up the case over and over again, but I am sure that your Lordships would like to be associated with them in this.
I should also like to ask the Government a question or two on the Chinese attitude to the Vienna Convention. As we know, the British representative in Shanghai was manhandled and his house was sacked in May, 1967. Even if he
890
were not technically a consular officer, it appears that he had certain consular duties. Communist China was not, I think, even represented at the Conferences which concluded either of the two Conventions. If this is the case, may I ask whether anything is being done bilaterally to safeguard the position of consular, indeed of all, diplomatic officers in China?
There are only one or two other questions which I should like to ask the noble Lord, but which perhaps might be more appropriately dealt with in Committee. However, if the Government are able to give a satisfactory answer this evening, then that may obviate raising them in Committee. One refers to Clause 8 of the Bill, which provides that the Treasury may authorise the refund, under certain conditions, of the duty on petrol. On the face of it, this seems odd, since there was no similar provision in the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. Why is it necessary to include this clause in the Consular Relations Act, but not in the Diplomatic Privileges Act?
I have given the noble Lord notice of this question, and I hope that he will be able to give me an answer. But I should like him to tell us to-day what is the position about petrol used by diplomats. What is the estimated cost of this concession? And why is it applied to hydrocarbon oils and not to other articles on which there is an Excise duty, for example, whisky or gin? Does this mark a further extension of the boundaries of diplomatic and consular privileges? I hope it does not. No doubt the noble Lord has a satisfactory answer to that.
Finally, Article 32 of the Convention, which is also included in Schedule 1 of the Bill, provides, among other things, that consular premises shall be exempt from municipal taxes
"other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered."
It seems that consular premises would pay the element in the rates arising from refuse collection, street lighting and so on but not for the element which goes towards services that the Consul would not use, for example, schools. I should think this a most difficult line to draw. How do the Government distinguish between these elements in the rates? Incidentally, is there any scheme for reimbursing municipal authorities for the loss

891
which they may thus suffer on consular premises? The granting of this privilege to diplomats would, of course, affect only one or two London boroughs; but the extension to consuls would involve a much larger number of local authorities. I think all your Lordships must be deeply concerned about the position of consuls in many parts of the world, when they have their windows broken or are otherwise treated in a most uncivilised fashion. Who would want to be a consul in these circumstances?
LORD GLADWYN: Or a diplomat?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Or, indeed, a diplomat? As we are dealing with the Consular Relations Bill at the moment, I confined it to consuls. I think that in many cases our consuls and our diplomats have proved to be as gallant men as any in our Armed Forces. I am sure, therefore, that your Lordships will welcome this Bill. I hope that it may be possible for us to ratify the Convention as soon as practicable—I know there are problems involved—and that the Soviet Government will, at long last, hearken and taken note of what we have to say about Mr. Brooke.
5.32 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I rise for one moment in order to support what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has just said on the subject of Mr. Gerald Brooke. It seems to us on these Benches to be extraordinary that this unfortunate man should be subjected to these frightful hardships, which apparently are almost endangering his life, simply for the crime of having, as I understand it, distributed some subversive literature. I do not know whether it might be represented to the Soviet Government, and at any rate it is a good thing that we here should say this, that this, if anything, is a demonstration of the essential weakness, apparently, of the Soviet régime. If they want to give the impression to the whole world that they are really a weak Government which might be overthrown by some coup d'état or some putsch at any moment, which may be the case, then they will go on treating Mr. Brooke as they have been treating him up to now. That ought to be said clearly and firmly to them, and it might conceivably make some impression.
892
The second point is that if there is any reason to suppose that in treating Mr. Gerald Brooke in this way, and more particularly in not letting him see the consul, they are actually violating the text of some Convention, as I think the noble Earl suggested, then that again is something which, if it were proved and demonstrated by qualified lawyers, might conceivably appeal to the Soviet Government, which is nothing if not legally minded and always likes on the face of it to be carrying out the law. I have had long experience of this in the United Nations with Mr. Vishinsky and others, and if you can prove and get them to admit that it is against the law, that makes an impression. Therefore, on these two fronts the Government might be well advised to make some new attack and somehow get the conditions of Mr. Brooke improved. It seems extraordinary that a man who is not even accused of spying should be treated much worse than any spy. At the moment, apparently, spies are in a rather privileged position; they are treated well by both sides. That seems to me also to be rather paradoxical and indeed deplorable. Therefore I think we ought to concentrate on trying to get this man's lot improved.
5.35 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure the whole House shares in and echoes the expressions of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in regard to Mr. Gerald Brooke. Perhaps I could deal with that before taking up the more detailed points addressed to me by the noble Earl. The House will know that the welfare of Mr. Gerald Brooke is a matter of very serious concern to the Government, and the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other members of the Government have on a number of occasions approached the Soviet leaders to seek clemency for Mr. Brooke and to obtain permission for visits to him by members of his family and Her Majesty's Consul, and continued pressure is being kept on the Soviet Government.
One of the purposes of Clause 3 of the Bill is to give the power to ratify the Anglo-Soviet Consular Convention. This Convention was signed on December 2, 1965, between the then Foreign Secretary and Mr. Gromyko. It was a

893
satisfactory document, seemingly well-suited to serve the, interests of both parties. Article 36 of that Convention, read in conjunction with the protocol of the Convention, regulates the right of a consular officer to be notified of the arrest or detention of a national and to have access to him. The effect of these provisions is that notification must be made within one to three days and access given within two to four days, while access must be given on a recurrent basis after conviction. These passages of the Convention would therefore be very relevant to a case such as that of Mr. Brooke if the Convention were in force. The terms of the Convention do not permit any exceptions and would therefore apply to Mr. Brooke equally as to any other British citizen.
Provided that there is no misunderstanding on this point, Her Majesty's Government would welcome the early entry into force of the Convention and would propose to take the necessary steps for this purpose. But, of course, it cannot be brought into force until this Bill becomes law. As to whether the Soviet Union is under any obligation of this kind pending the entry into force of the Convention, the answer is that she has not signed or acceded to the Vienna Convention, which also contains provisions on the matter at Article 36. Nor, apart from the Vienna Convention, is there any established rule of customary international law requiring States to extend rights of access or communication to foreign consuls. Nevertheless, many States do as a matter of normal international practice.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, asked me why Article 36 of the Vienna Convention has not been included in this Bill.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, has the noble Lord left the case of Mr. Brooke?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: May I also ask him whether there is no chance, for example, of an English doctor being allowed to fly out to the Soviet Union? If so, and knowing many Russians, I should be very glad to fly with him if
894
I could be of any assistance to him. I feel that we must try to get some humanity into this matter.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I very much take the point. We are at the moment—and the noble Earl will understand my very careful words at this present stage—seeking through all the channels which are open to us to see that Mr. Brooke is visited by the consul so that we can assess his physical condition. I think I had better leave it like that. But I should not like the House to be under any illusions that this matter is not being pressed in the same spirit that the noble Earl has brought to it, not only as a question of humanity but also as one of recognised international practice.
The noble Earl asked why in Clause 3 we are providing the possibility of wider privileges and immunities than are within the Vienna Convention. The noble Earl, I thought, gave me the answer. He recognised the conditions under which many of our consuls are required to work, and therefore when entering into bilateral agreements, as in the case of Russia and Poland, it may well be that wider immunities and privileges should be accorded to our Consuls in those territories. It may well be that we shall be entering into other bilateral agreements. Therefore Clause 3 and Clause 14(1) give us a degree of flexibility to enter into these wider fields, but again subject to Schedule 2 and the approval of Parliament.
The noble Earl also asked me about the position in regard to China, and referred to the regrettable treatment suffered by our Consuls and representatives in Shanghai. By agreement with the Chinese People's Government, the British representative in Shanghai was technically regarded as a detached member of the British Mission in Peking. This gave him a diplomatic rather than a consular status. The noble Earl asked whether we were opening discussions with the Government of China for, perhaps, a bilateral agreement. I think he will recognise, as the Government themselves have said, that our relations at the present moment are far from normal and we are doing all we can to bring back normality. But in the present circumstances it would not seem to me very profitable to seek to make these particular overtures.

895
The noble Earl asked about Clause 8 in regard to hydrocarbon oils. The position is that the Consuls at present in the United Kingdom already receive relief from the tax on oils, so to that extent we are not making an extension. But we are, in fact, putting this provision into a Bill for the first time. The noble Earl drew my attention to the fact that it is not in the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964. The answer is that we intend at a suitable date to amend the Diplomatic Privileges Act to give statutory authority for the refund of duties on hydrocarbon oils to diplomatic missions and personnel. Again, this is in line with what is provided for and made available on a reciprocal basis to our Consuls overseas. The noble Earl asked me—
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I also asked the noble Lord about whisky and gin—why the arrangement applied in regard to oils, but not in regard to whisky and gin.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the point is that I am now dealing only with oils: I have not yet got to whisky and gin. The noble Earl asked me how much it would cost the Exchequer. The answer is that it is a figure of some £6,000 a year.
Since the noble Earl wishes an answer in regard to whisky and gin, I understand that, with the exception of oils which are clearly a special case, the immunities available to the diplomatic and consular services are given when the goods are imported into the United Kingdom. Of course, in the case of oils it is not conceivable that a diplomatic office would import its petrol, and that is why there is a special position in regard to oils. In practice, the goods which are normally dutiable are relieved for these officers on importation, but I understand that the general rule is that this arrangement does not apply to whisky and gin. When I asked this question yesterday, I was assured that diplomatic missions are given
896
a concession in respect of whisky and gin, because it is considered rather a good advertising proposition that whisky and gin should be drunk in the various Embassies in this country. But I understand that items like cigarettes must come out of the bond.
The noble Earl asked me about rating relief. I agree that it is hard to see how one can define what is a beneficial and what is a non-beneficial element in this matter. I have a list here, and the beneficial services include main drainage and sewerage, fire services, the removal of refuse, and highways and streets, including maintenance, et cetera. The non-beneficial services are education, police, housing, baths, wash-houses, public libraries and even cemeteries. But I am assured that this division is clearly understood in practice, and is well recognised by the various authorities.
My Lords, I think I have dealt with all the points, but if there are any technical matters which I have overlooked I will communicate with the noble Earl, which will perhaps relieve us of the necessity of having a Committee stage. But we shall wait and see. Again, I echo the feeling of your Lordships about the case of Mr. Brooke. I hope that we shall be able to find a proper settlement with the Soviet authorities, and I also hope that we shall find that all the reports about his health are not true. At the present moment, we ourselves have no evidence in that respect. In conclusion, I would pay my own tribute to the wife of Mr. Brooke, who has shown great fortitude and, if I may say so, great statesmanship in very difficult circumstances. When she has appeared in public she has always remained loyal to her husband and has never given way, and she has always, in my view, shown what a good wife should be.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.