Lords Sitting of 21 January 1969

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.
The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

NIGERIA: RELIEF NEEDS
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the reports that the supply of food and medical supplies required to alleviate human suffering in Eastern Nigeria may shortly become inadequate, they will consider granting financial aid in order to help ensure that urgent needs will be met.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, on December 12 Her Majesty's Government announced a grant of £700,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and this, with previous amounts, will bring our contribution to Nigerian relief to nearly £1 million. With other national efforts and private contributions this should meet the immediate requirements of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply may I ask him if he can say whether the rumours and reports that, temporarily at least, supplies of food and medicine for distribution in Eastern Nigeria have been suspended are true or untrue?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I regret that, due to difficulties which have been raised by Equatorial Guinea, there is a temporary halt in night flights to Fernando Po. I hope that steps will be
894
taken so that these flights will shortly be resumed.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating what the British Government have done in this matter, may I ask my noble friend, first of all, whether he is aware that there is a very great danger of the hunger increasing because of the exhaustion of local carbohydrates? Secondly, is that danger not increased by the likelihood of the bombing of the one airstrip through which relief goes? Thirdly, may I ask my noble friend whether it would not be possible for the British Government to take the initiative in calling a conference at Geneva, with observers from Governments, the United Nations Agencies and the relief organisations, in order to plan the massive relief which is necessary if the starvation of thousands is not to occur?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have myself expressed concern about the situation which might arise, particularly in the Biafran area, when the carbohydrates run out. But I would say to my noble friend that I have received some information, in a report by Dr. Gussing, the United Nations observer, that the situation is perhaps not so bad as many of us have feared, although there are considerable dangers that from March onwards a serious position may arise. This, clearly, is one of the reasons why I have attached so much importance to the establishment of road land corridors. As my noble friend will be aware, when I was in Lagos in December the Federal Government undertook that we could have land routes and that these could be guaranteed by observers of O.A.U.
In regard to the bombing of the airstrip, what my noble friend says is true. On the other hand, this is an airstrip that is being used to bring in military supplies by night. This is another reason why I am very anxious to see the establishment of flights by day, so that this effort can be taken well away from the military use of the airfield.
In regard to massive planning, this may be necessary, but I should think that at this stage the International Committee of the Red Cross is the right organisation for this planning, and we have already made it clear—and so, I understand, have the United States and other friendly Governments—that we

895
shall always be ready to give any assistance which they may require.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I further ask what is the reason for the inability to make day flights to supply food and medical necessities?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, to put it briefly, it is Colonel Ojukwu. He has said that he would be prepared to allow daylight airlifts only if night flying proved inadequate.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is any difficulty in getting British armaments to Nigeria?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should have thought that was another question. I know the point behind it, but I do not think that it arises on this Question.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I urged upon Colonel Ojukwu that both road and air relief should be possible under international supervision, and is he also aware that Colonel Ojukwu has now agreed to day flights to a neutralised airstrip? Could my noble friend tell me what has been the response to that?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I know that my noble friend had discussions with Colonel Ojukwu. If I may say so, I applaud the fact that the noble Lord, at his advanced age but in his undoubted health, decided to undertake this hazardous mission to Biafra. However, may I tell my noble friend that what Colonel Ojukwu may have said to him does not bear much relation to what he has said publicly. May I quote what he said at Christmas, speaking about air flights? He said that he accepted this in principle, and that any relief organisation which found the present facilities inadequate would be permitted to build an airport or airstrip for daylight flights, but it was based on whether the night flights were inadequate.

ALCOHOLISM: FACILITIES FOR TREATMENT
2.43 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government approximately how many institutions, units or centres and how many beds in these are available for patients suffering from alcoholism; to what extent medical students receive training to deal with alcoholism as a disease; and what attention is being paid to the necessity of treating the half a million persons alleged to be suffering from this disease.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, there are 154 hospitals for mental illness in England and Wales, and a further 105 units in teaching and general hospitals for mental illness. Most of these can treat alcoholic patients. Among these hospitals there are 13 special units, with a total of 250 beds, for the treatment of alcoholism. The content of courses for medical students is a matter for the universities. There is no generally accepted estimate of the total number of alcoholics in this country. Advice on the treatment of alcoholism was sent to all hospitals, local health authorities and general practitioners last year, and they were asked to co-operate in providing a comprehensive service for prevention, treatment and after-care.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him if he appreciates that from all sources there are, apparently, about half a million people suffering from alcoholism, and whether in those circumstances he thinks that the provision for their treatment is really adequate? Secondly, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not feel that some advice could be given to the training centres so that this particular, complex disease could be treated better through a fuller understanding by the students of the disease?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the figure of half a million alcoholics quoted by

897
my noble friend is probably based on what is known as the Jellinek formula. This was devised by an American, Doctor Jellinek, and applied to Britain in a World Health Organisation technical report in 1951. There were said to be 2·78 per 1,000 of the adult population in England and Wales suffering from alcoholism with complications. This figure was multiplied by four—and the factor is based on American experience—to obtain an estimate of all adult alcoholics. This gives a figure of 11 per 1,000, and would give a total of 370,000, based on the present adult population. A total of half a million could be reached only by basing the calculation on the whole rather than on the adult population. A recent article in The Medical Officer by a Maudsley Hospital team which had undertaken a field study suggests that the number of known alcoholics who need treatment should probably be multiplied by a factor of three, not four, to arrive at the total, and this would give 280,000 in the country.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, could my noble friend answer the point I raised about treatment?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, advice about training is given.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, whether he fully appreciates the importance of the Question set down by the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen; and whether he would agree with me that to the figure given in an Answer to a specific Question in another place yesterday as to the number of working days lost in industrial disputes, which was given as 4,607,000 compared with 2,728,000 in 1967, we should add just over 30 per cent. more working days lost due solely to this disease, the abuse of alcohol, and to the consequent absenteeism on the first day of the working week, which is now termed "Monday sickness"?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not think that any Member of this House would dispute that alcoholism is a grave problem. The purpose of my Answer was only to cast doubt on the automatic acceptance of the figure of half a million, the statistical basis for which is far from sure; and to say that there were hospitals
898
equipped to deal with this disease and that the training of medical students takes account of this problem.

ARBROATH NAVAL AIR STATION
2.46 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Selkirk.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are considering closing the R.N.A.S. "Condor" at Arbroath.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, the future of H.M.S. "Condor", together with that of all other Naval Air Stations, is being considered in connection with the run-down of the Fleet Air Arm.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when he will be able to make an announcement on this matter?
LORD WINTERBOTTON: My Lords, the Government's decision on the future of the Fleet Air Arm stations will be published in the forthcoming Defence White Paper.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will bear in mind that any decision to close down this station would cause deep disappointment in East Scotland? And can he give an assurance that Scottish opinion will be consulted, possibly in the person of the Secretary of State for Scotland, or, better still, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who knows all about that part of the world?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the concern is shared by Her Majesty's Government; but, as the noble Lord knows, there are well-established procedures which are followed when a military station is closed, and those procedures will be followed in this particular case.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an indication, at any rate, that the Government appreciate how much it will mean to Arbroath if this

899
station is closed down? If, as seems to be the case, this station is to be transferred to Lee-on-Solent, will he recognise that the loss of this station would make much more difference to Arbroath than its gain would make to Lee-on-Solent?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Lord's concern, and of the concern felt in Scotland as a whole, about this decision, which will have to be made in the near future.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, in view of the great concern felt in that part of the world, from which I come, if I were to write the noble Lord a letter setting out various points, would he read it?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, most certainly.

POSTAGE STAMPS' SHIP ILLUSTRATIONS
LORD SANDYS: 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 on what basis the ships illustrated in the new issue of postage stamps were selected and what interests were consulted before the choice was made.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the stamps illustrate British merchant ships since the 16th century, and each ship shown is intended to represent an important element in the history of British shipping. Except for the "Queen Elizabeth 2", the choice of ships was left to the artists who submitted designs. In making his final choice from these designs, my right honourable friend the Postmaster General was guided by the recommendations of his Stamp Advisory Committee. No commercial or other interests were allowed to influence the choice, but technical advice was sought where appropriate.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, I would ask him whether he would not agree that it is somewhat unusual that one particular commercial interest should be represented twice in this particular issue. The alternative 1s. stamp shows
900
R.M.S. "Mauretania" and the 5d. shows R.M.S. "Queen Elizabeth 2"; and both ships are owned by the same parent company, or parent company by amalgamation?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, we are well aware of the fact that the Cunard Company is represented twice. But the "Mauretania" was one of the most famous ships at the beginning of this century, holding the Atlantic Blue Riband for 22 years, and we felt, in spite of the fact that she was succeeded by "Queen Elizabeth 2", that both should be included in this series of stamps.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS (SOCIAL NEED) BILL
Brought from the Commons on the 19th of December last, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911, and printed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45; read 1a.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
Brought from the Commons on the 19th of December last and printed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45; read 1a.

AGE OF MAJORITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law of Scotland in relation to the age of majority; and for connected purposes.

901
I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill now be read 1ª—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

ELECTRICITY (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.54 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short and simple Bill but an important one. Its main purpose is to raise the limit on the amount which the Scottish Electricity Boards may borrow from £580 million to £800 million, but the opportunity has been taken to include a provision amending the statutory requirements governing the authentication of the Board's seals. The estimates on which the proposed new limit is based are explained in the White Paper on the Bill and in the Boards' brochure, Plans for the Future, 1968–1975, copies of which are in the Printed Paper Office. But it may be helpful if I explain the position briefly.
The last occasion on which your Lordships' House considered the borrowing powers of the Scottish Electricity Boards was when the Electricity and Gas Bill of 1963 was before you. That Act raised the borrowing limits of the Scottish Boards to £500 million with provision for a further increase to £580 million on approval of an Order to that effect by the House of Commons. Such an Order was approved in 1966. At that time the extension was expected to last for about two years. This estimate has proved to be very near the mark: at March 31, 1969, the total borrowings expected to count against the limit will be about £583 million. The new limit of £800 million is expected to last until 1975, but the Bill provides an interim limit of £700 million beyond which the Boards will not have power to borrow unless the Secretary of State, as in 1966, makes an Order which must receive the approval of the House of Commons. That point is expected to be reached in 1972.
The White Paper on the present Bill shows in paragraph 8 that in the seven years to March 31, 1975, the capital re-
902
quirements of the Scottish Electricity Boards are forecast at £506 million. The allocation of this figure between the two Boards and its detailed make-up between generation, transmission and distribution expenditure and working capital is set out in Table 3 of the Boards' brochure. Of the total requirements of £506 million the Boards expect to meet £300 million from internal resources, leaving the balance of £206 million to come from borrowing. This is the extent of the new borrowing envisaged, but in addition provision has been included for some £37 million of re-borrowing to repay loans which at present are not required to be within the borrowing limit.
Electricity demand in Scotland has for many years been increasing at a higher rate than in England and Wales, and this trend is expected to continue. Sales are expected to increase by about 80 per cent. during the seven years up to 1975. Over the past ten years the Scottish demand has shown an average annual growth of about 8½ per cent. There are no indications that this will fall away in the next seven years.
The greater part of the expenditure provided for over this period will be devoted to the creation of new generating capacity. With power stations taking some five to seven years to design and build, correct load forecasting is essential if over-investment is to be avoided and if economic development is not going to be restricted by shortage of power. The Scottish Boards have had a very good record in this respect. The investment programmes of the Boards have to be approved each year by the Secretary of State and this approval is given only after the programmes submitted by the Boards each spring have been studied in detail by the Department concerned. Investment appraisal is carried out in accordance with the principles set out in the White Paper Cmnd. 3437 using the test discount rate recommended by the Government.
Planning of new generating capacity for Scotland as a whole is undertaken by a Joint Planning Committee of the two Boards, which makes a series of computer studies of the effect on system costs over a period of years of each alternative means available of meeting forecast demands. In deciding what proposals to put to the Secretary of State the Boards

903
are accordingly able to base their judgment on a precise estimate of the effect on Scottish system costs of each alternative, with all other stations fitting into their proper place in the system and adopting the most appropriate load factor. This is the method which was used to establish the case for the Hunterston "B" nuclear power station at present being built in North Ayrshire; and since then the Boards have recommended that the next projects should be a pumped storage hydro-electric scheme at Foyers, in Inverness-shire, and an oil-fired station on the Clyde.
The Foyers scheme was published early in 1968. Certain objections were lodged to it, but following negotiations between the objectors and the Board these have now been withdrawn and the Secretary of State will be announcing his decision very soon. Your Lordships will understand that I cannot anticipate that decision, but if the scheme is approved it will be laid before Parliament and may be annulled by a Resolution of either House. The proposal for the oil-fired
station is being considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in consultation with his colleagues. It is for the Boards to put forward whatever proposals they regard as most appropriate from their commercial point of view, but Ministers are entitled, and indeed obliged, to look at the full range of economic and social implications. This is being done.
Finally, I should perhaps mention the change proposed in the statutory requirements governing the authentication of the Boards' seals. At present two signatures are required: that of the chairman or another authorised member of the Board and that of the secretary or another authorised person. It is proposed in future to require only the signature of the secretary or other authorised person. With an organisation of the size of these Boards and bearing in mind the many transactions which require sealing, it will be appreciated that the requirement of a signature by a Board member as well as that of an official of the Board can be unnecessarily burdensome.
The number of documents requiring sealing—leases, feu contracts, miscellaneous formal agreements of many kinds—
904
is running at something over 100 a year for the Hydro Board and at 200 to 250 a year in recent years for the South Board. This represents something like 1,500 signatures, since many of these documents have more than one sheet, each of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will recollect, has to be signed. Provided that the agreements incorporated in the documents have been properly approved at the appropriate level, it is sensible that the Boards should be able, if they wish, to delegate to officials authority to sign on their behalf. This simplification has already been adopted for certain other nationalised Boards under the Transport and Civil Aviation Acts of last Session. I commend the Bill to your Lordships as a measure necessary for the social and economic wellbeing of Scotland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hughes.)
3.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for once again giving your Lordships such a clear and concise account of the content of a Scottish Bill. As he said, it is really one of a series—an almost inevitable series—of measures which come before your Lordships' House from time to time. I think that there is little doubt that noble Lords on both sides of the House will wish to see this Bill given a Second Reading as soon as possible.
At first sight, the increased borrowing powers sought in the Bill seem to be large. On the other hand, when one reads this excellent document, to which the noble Lord referred, one sees that the money is required for specific and genuine purposes. Indeed, if one calculates the figures in the document one sees that the Boards are allowing themselves very little to spare at the end of the period up to 1975. Therefore one hopes that their forecasting will prove to be accurate and that we shall not need to have another interim measure of this sort before that date. One thing interests me, partly because of its omission from the Report. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell the House if any of these calculations have taken into account the possible effect on the Scottish economy of the provision of gas from the North Sea.

905
I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the work of the Scottish Electricity Boards and their employees. I have always found them extremely efficient and very helpful. Looking back to about a year ago, when we had a hurricane in Scotland, one recalls that it was remarkable how quickly in most cases electricity supplies were restored.
One thing that affects us all, and not only in respect of electricity, although
particularly so there, is the cost. As noble Lords know well, this is increasing month by month for obvious reasons, such as labour and fuel costs. Because of this I am a little puzzled about the seeming reluctance of the Electricity Boards in Scotland to put forward more positive plans for nuclear generating stations, for I believe I am right in saying that already the cost per unit of producing electricity from nuclear energy is lower than that for electricity from any other form of generation. I quite understand that there are social reasons for using other methods, and indeed capital reasons why other forms of generating equipment are cheaper in the first place, but I feel that the future lies with the nuclear generating stations, and I hope that, at any rate after 1975, we shall see more of them being built.
I should like also to say a brief word about amenity, not because I think that the Boards have fallen down in this respect but to encourage them to do even more. We all realise that because of cost you cannot bury power transmission lines but it is often the case that a small adjustment in the siting of pylons and grids can make all the difference to the countryside. I know that the Boards are well aware of this problem, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his colleagues will take the opportunity to remind them of it from time to time. With those few remarks, my Lords, I welcome the Bill.
3.5 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I am certain that the whole House would like to join with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, in congratulating both the Scottish Electricity Boards on the foresight they have shown, which alone has enabled them to deal with the constantly increasing demand for electricity throughout the whole of Scotland. If I may add just one word, it is in connection
906
with the station at Foyers, which was mentioned by the Minister. Some little time ago, when I had something to do with the provision of electricity in the North of Scotland, it was considered that this station, working in conjunction with the new fast reactor at Dounreay, would produce a most efficient supply of electricity, both economically and otherwise. I hope that when the matter comes before the Secretary of State he will find it possible to approve the scheme set before him.
3.6 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the general and generous welcome which they have given to the Bill. The noble Marquess asked whether the Boards had taken into account in their estimates the effect of North Sea gas. I can say that so far as is possible at this stage the Boards have made allowance for the likely effect of this new fuel on the growth of demand. North Sea gas is, in fact, expected to become available in Scotland in the early 1970s.
The noble Marquess also referred to cost. I think the words he used were, "We all know that costs are increasing month by month". If he was referring to the cost to the Boards he is probably right, but it is perhaps an example of the efficiency of the Boards that at least they ensure that the increased cost is not passed on month by month to their consumers. Increases in electricity costs are not as rare as we should like, but certainly they are not so frequent as in other sectors of the economy; and this despite the fact that both Boards have an excellent record, as the noble Marquess said, with regard to amenity, particularly in the area of the North Board. Any tribute I make in this respect will not, perhaps, be invalidated by the fact that, like the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I was formerly a member of that Board. Without either his or my accepting any responsibility for it, I think it true to say that no public, body in this country—or private body, for that matter—devote more of their resources to protecting the natural beauty of the landscape in which they have to work. By the nature of their task the South Board are perhaps not so heavily involved, but I think it equally true to say

907
of that Board that the protection of amenity is never far from their thoughts in relation to any new scheme. In any event, if it were, there are thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people very ready to remind them of their responsibilities in that direction.
On the question of costs, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, referred to the part which the generation of nuclear electricity could play in keeping down costs in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the Foyers scheme. I could almost wish that this Second Reading debate had been a little further ahead in time, because then it would have been easier for me to make references to the costs to which the Boards have referred in putting forward their schemes. I think that all I can properly say is that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has left your Lordships in no doubt about the value which he would attach to the approval of the Foyers scheme, and I am certain that he is not doing so because he regarded it as an expensive way of providing electricity. Beyond that, I would not go. I thank your Lordships for the reception given and for the speedy Second Reading which your Lordships propose to accord to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FAMILY LAW REFORM BILL [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3:
Clause 13, page 10, line 37, after ("Act") insert ("or at common law")
Clause 14, page 11, line 40, after ("Act") insert ("or at common law")
Clause 15, page 13, line 11, after ("Act") insert ("or at common law").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will have ob-
908
served that Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are all in exactly the same words and consequently, if no noble Lord objects, I will move all three together.
Amendment No. 1, to Clause 13, is a drafting Amendment, which excludes from the operation of Clause 13 illegitimate children who are recognised at common law as having been legitimated. Clause 13 confers upon illegitimate children and their parents rights of succession on intestacy which are not as extensive as those conferred by Section 3(1)(a) of the Legitimacy Act 1926 on "legitimated persons". The main difference is that the rights conferred by Clause 13 extend only to the parent-child relationship, whereas under Section 3(1)(a) a "legitimated person" is treated, for all purposes of an intestacy occurring after the legitimation, on a par with a person born legitimate.
By virtue of Sections 8(2) and 11 of the Act of 1926, "legitimated person" in that Act means either a person who is legitimated under the Act (that is to say, a person whose father was domiciled in England at the time of the relevant marriage), or a person recognised by virtue of the Act as having been legitimated—that is to say, a person whose father was at the time of the relevant marriage domiciled in a foreign country the law of which provided for legitimation by subsequent marriage. It was, however, held by Harman, J. in Re Hurll: Angelini v. Dick, in 1952 that a person who would have been recognised at common law as having been legitimated independently of the Act of 1926 was not a person so recognised by virtue of that Act. The object of Clause 13(8) is to ensure that no person born illegitimate and subsequently legitimated should be treated less favourably than he would be if Clause 13 had never been enacted. It is therefore necessary to exclude from Clause 13 all classes of legitimated persons, and the Amendment makes it clear that persons recognised at common law as having been legitimated are so excluded.
The analogous Amendments to Clauses 14 and 15 make corresponding provision for the construction of references in those clauses to "illegitimate child". In both those clauses it is necessary, unlike the

909
position in Clause 13, to ensure that references to illegitimate children do include references to all categories of legitimated persons.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4.
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
Entry of father's name on registration of birth of illegitimate child
(" .—(1) In section 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (which provides that the registrar shall not enter the name of any person as the father of an illegitimate child except at the joint request of the mother and the person acknowledging himself to be the father and requires that person to sign the register together with the mother) for the words from 'except ' onwards there shall be substituted the words except—

(a) at the joint request of the mother and the person acknowledging himself to be the father of the child (in which case that person shall sign the register together with the mother); or

(b) at the request of the mother on production of—

(i) a declaration in the prescribed form made by the mother stating that the said person is the father of the child; and

(ii) a statutory declaration made by that person acknowledging himself to be the father of the child.'

(2) If on the registration under Part I of the said Act of 1953 of the birth of an illegitimate child no person has been entered in the register as the father, the registrar may reregister the birth so as to show a person as the father—

(a) at the joint request of the mother and of that person (in which case the mother and that person shall both sign the register in the presence of the registrar); or

(b) at the request of the mother on production of—

(i) a declaration in the prescribed form made by the mother stating that the person in question is the father of the child; and

(ii) a statutory declaration made by that person acknowledging himself to be the father of the child;

but no birth shall be re-registered as aforesaid except with the authority of the Registrar General and any such re-registration shall be effected in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) A request under paragraph (a) or (b) of section 10 of the said Act of 1953 as amended by subsection (1) of this section may be included in a declaration under section 9 of that Act (registration of birth pursuant to a declaration made in another district) and, if a request under the said paragraph (b) is included in such a declaration, the documents mentioned
910
in that paragraph shall be produced to the officer in whose presence the declaration is made and sent by him, together with the declaration, to the registrar.
(4) A request under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) of this section may, instead of being made to the registrar, be made by making and signing in the presence of and delivering to such officer as may be prescribed a written statement in the prescribed form and, in the case of a request under the said paragraph (b), producing to that officer the documents mentioned in that paragraph, and the officer shall send the statement together with the documents, if any, to the registrar; and thereupon that subsection shall have effect as if the request had been made to the registrar and, if the birth is re-registered pursuant to the request, the person or persons who signed the statement shall be treated as having signed the register as required by that subsection.
(5) This section shall be construed as one with the said Act of 1953; and in section 14(1)(a) of that Act (re-registration of birth of legitimated person) the reference to section 10 of that Act shall include a reference to subsection (2) of this section.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment enables the name of the father of an illegitimate child to be entered on the register of births, first, without the need for his attending personally to sign the register on the occasion of first registration, and secondly, on the re-regisration of a birth that has already been registered. Under the current law applicable to England and Wales, the name of the father can be entered only at the joint request of both parents and on the father's signing the register. This is under Section 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. There is no provision for the "late entry" of the father's name unless the child's birth is re-registered on legitimation. This comes under Section 14. It is thought that these provisions may, in an appreciable number of cases, prevent the father's name from appearing on the register notwithstanding that both parents wish it to be included and that its inclusion might be of some benefit to the child.
In Scotland, the position is different. Under Section 18(1) of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965, the father's name may be entered on first registration, not only if he attends with the mother and signs the register but also if there are produced to the registrar a declaration by the mother stating that he is the father and a statutory declaration by him acknowledging paternity. Moreover, Section

911
18(2) enables the registrar subsequently to record the father's name by making an appropriate entry in the Register of Corrections if, inter alia, there are produced to him declarations to the like effect made by the mother and the father within 12 months of the birth. Your Lordships may remember that in Committee the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, suggested that the Bill might provide an appropriate means of extending to England facilities similar to those available in Scotland, and moved a new clause based on Section 18(1) of the 1965 Act. I said that I accepted the principle underlying the noble Viscount's Amendment but that there were drafting difficulties about it and if he would withdraw his Amendment I would consult with him to see whether we could find appropriate terminology. On that, the noble Viscount withdrew his Amendment. This Amendment meets that undertaking.
Subsection (1) of the new clause amends Section 10 of the Act of 1953 so as to provide, as an alternative to the current procedure, that the father's name should be inserted in the register on first registration at the request of the mother and on the production by her of, first, her own declaration in the prescribed form stating that the man concerned is the father and, secondly, a statutory declaration made by him acknowledging paternity. This is the same procedure as that provided for by Section 18(1)(b) of the Scottish Act, the only difference being that subsection (1)(b) of the new clause states in terms that the father's name is to be entered on the production by the mother of the appropriate declarations, whereas Section 18(1)(b) of the Act is not explicit on this point. However, the form of declaration currently prescribed is such that it can be produced only by the mother. The mother's declaration has to be in a prescribed form—that is to say, a form prescribed under Section 39 of the Act of 1953; the father's declaration must be a statutory declaration. The reason for requiring a statutory declaration by the father is that otherwise there would be no sanction for a deliberately false declaration, whereas the mother's declaration, being made by an informant, falls within Section 4(1) of the Perjury Act 1911.
The principle underlying subsection (2) and subsection (1) is that the father's name should appear on the register only if both parents desire it. Subsection (2) also departs from the Scottish precedent in providing directly for re-registration and not for prior amendment of the original entry. The disadvantage of operating by way of amendment is that the method of correction laid down by the Registration Acts would give more than normal emphasis to the circumstances of the child's birth.
I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with the other subsections. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will feel that the moving of this Amendment complies with the undertaking that I gave. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am more than grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for moving this Amendment. It certainly meets the point that I made in the Committee stage and, indeed, as the noble and learned Lord has said, goes a good deal further than my Amendment did then. I hoped that it would be possible to provide a fairly straightforward and comprehensive means whereby if both parents wanted to re-register the child's name, or if they both wanted the father's name to appear as well, this would be possible. It seems to me that the substance of the new clause does exactly that. That is all I sought, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having had the clause re-drafted properly and for putting it in the Bill. I can say in advance that it seems to me that the consequential Amendment in the Title is also a great improvement on what I tried to put in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment in the Title is consequential on the new clause dealing with the registration of illegitimate births. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 10, at end insert ("to make further provision, in connection with the registration of the birth of an illegitimate child, for entering the name of the father").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, in order to enable my noble friend the Leader of the House to make the Statement which he promised earlier, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn during pleasure until shortly after 3.30 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
3.33 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on the Meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. The Statement is as follows:
"The conclusions of the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, which took place from the 7th to the 15th of January, are set out in the Communiqué, copies of which have been placed in the Library. It will also be published as a White Paper.
"The House will perhaps expect me to say something about the background to the meeting, and about the main impressions anyone who attended it would be likely to derive.
"This was the first meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers since September, 1966. Twenty-eight independent Commonwealth countries attended, five new member countries took part for the first time and Tanzania, which was not present in September, 1966, played a full part in this year's Conference. Of the 28 countries represented, 13 were African, 5 were from Asia, 2 from Australasia, 5 from the Western Hemisphere and 3 from Europe. Twenty-four of the 28 countries were represented by their Head of Government.
"There were some commentators who were prepared to write off in advance not only the meeting but the Commonwealth itself. The fact that so many Presidents and Prime Ministers were prepared to leave their pressing
914
domestic affairs and preoccupations for a fortnight, to travel such long
distances, and to play so full a part in the meeting, is—and I am sure I am speaking here for the whole House—an answer to the pessimists.
"Unlike the meeting of September, 1966, adequate time was devoted to all the main issues on the agenda. The time spent in formal session was fairly equally divided between four main subjects—a comprehensive review of the world situation, Rhodesia, a review of the world economic situation, and the development of specific measures of Commonwealth co-operation. In addition, the session which approval the Communiqué enabled Prime Ministers to supplement their previous discussions on these main issues. There was also, of course, the usual review of the Commonwealth's own domestic arrangements, including the Secretary General's Report on the Secretariat affairs, and the work of the Commonwealth Foundation.
"The debate on the world political situation, in which nearly every delegation took part, was of a kind no other forum would be likely to provide for a serious and authoritative treatment of international problems. While some might have expected the very size of the Conference to weaken the force and pointedness of the debate, the fact that contributions were made with such authority from every Continent of the world, the fact that of the 28 delegations so many were represented at. Head of Government level, the fact that it was so representative a gathering of so many races, in a multiracial setting, with wide diversity of political approach on many basic world problems—all these facts strengthened rather than weakened the quality of the discussion and the importance of the occasion.
"One difference I noticed from previous Conferences was the greater emphasis on regional problems—Australasia and other parts of Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, with particular reference to the Caribbean. For each Prime Minister it was as though he was given an angle on world affairs represented not by a world map centring on his own country, as we all instinctively tend to see it, but with

915
each problem sharply highlighted from different geographical angles.
"Similarly, the debate on the world economic situation, while dealing separately with problems of liquidity and the liberalisation of trade in the general sense, also to a considerable extent dealt with the problems associated with development—including commodity policy—and with aid.
"The compelling need of the developing members of the Commonwealth for continued capital aid and technical assistance was eloquently expressed. The contributions being made by the developed countries, despite—for example in Britatin's case—the balance-of-payments problems, was generously acknowledged. More than I have known in previous Conferences, there were encouraging detailed suggestions about ways in which the developing countries could share with each other their expertise in dealing with the particular problems each had had, or was having, to face.
"The discussion on Commonwealth co-operation was in part at least a development of the three sessions we had spent on the world economic situation and it was here that we were able to review the network of personal, technical and professional relationships that give meaning to the subject under discussion.
"The House will expect me to amplify the reference in the Communiqué to Rhodesia. This debate was at a high level, penetrating and impressive and the contributions to the debate were expressed with a great deal more moderation than in 1966. This was I think welcome to us all. While we were sharply divided on this question, and while—I would not wish the House to be under any misunderstanding about this—a very considerable majority of the Commonwealth opposed various aspects of British policy, there was a genuine awareness of the difficulty and complexity of the problem. There was no difference on the fundamental objective of majority rule. There were considerable differences about the way in which it should be brought about.
"The House will be aware that a few delegations—and a smaller num-
916
ber than previously—continued to urge that the problem should be settled by the use of force. I explained why in the view of the British Government, who have the ultimate and final responsibility for settling Rhodesian questions, the resort to war was wrong, impracticable and indeed, as I argued, dangerous.
"The Conference was fully informed about the 'Fearless' negotiations. My right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio reported on the discussions he held in Salisbury. I made it clear that the 'Fearless' proposals would remain on the table, however negative the reaction so far received from Salisbury.
"I also emphasised that, in accordance with the principles laid down by the British Government, the final decision which has to be taken must depend on the requirement laid down in the fifth principle; namely, that any settlement must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. It was the main point of my argument that it is they who must have the last word, provided that we are all clear that they can express it in the right conditions. I made it clear that their future will not be decided except with their consent.
"The House will wish to know about two other issues. Discussion of the problem of Commonwealth immigration, and the related question of Commonwealth citizenship, took place mainly outside the Conference Chamber. It did not go as far as Her Majesty's Government would have wished. The question of United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa—and it may be Central Africa—who have no close connection with this country inevitably proved difficult and delicate. My right honourable friends made the position clear in the terms in which the matter was discussed in this House last spring. We had to make it plain that our policy on equality of rights and opportunities for all who have settled amongst us, and for all who, under our laws, make their homes in this country, would be frustrated if a balance were not preserved between the rate of entry for settlement and our absorptive capacity. We intend to remain within the current

917
ceiling for immigration for settlement, whether for Commonwealth citizens or for British passport holders who have no close connection with this country. I think our Commonwealth colleagues recognise that to press too hard on this matter might involve us in having to limit immigration from other Commonwealth countries. We propose now to seek bilateral discussions with the Commonwealth countries most closely concerned. We shall, of course, also participate in the studies of the wider problems of Commonwealth migration which the Secretary General was asked to undertake.
"The other question about which the House is so deeply concerned is the tragic situation in Nigeria. In accordance with the established conventions of Commonwealth meetings, and these conventions are right, there was no discussion of the Nigerian situation round the Conference table. But it was the subject of very many bilateral and multilateral exchanges outside the Conference Chamber, in hotels, at Chequers, and at an informal gathering to which I invited my colleagues at Lancaster House.
"The main concern of many Heads of Government was to mount a discussion between the official Nigerian delegation to the Conference and the representatives of Colonel Ojukwu who were in London last week. The head of the Nigerian delegation made plain to me, and to others privately, and to the gathering of 27 of us at Lancaster House last week, his willingness unconditionally to attend such a meeting with Colonel Ojukwu's representatives, if one were arranged under appropriate auspices. Despite discussions by British representatives and those of other countries with the representatives concerned, I regret that there was no move in response from Colonel Ojukwu's representative in time for talks while Chief Awolowo was still here. Nigeria's Commonwealth partners, the vast majority of whom, but not all of whom, have declared themselves against the secessionist movement, stand ready to help in any way any of us can, individually, through wider groupings or through non-Commonwealth groupings, such as the Organisation of African Unity,
918
which number many Commonwealth countries among their membership.
"It was not within the power of this meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to solve the world's problems. It was within its power to examine those problems in terms of utter frankness, moderation and comradeship and to enhance—in a way that no other conceivable gathering could have done—the understanding of each of us of the problems of each other, and of the views of each other on every problem which we have to deal with in our domestic Governments and Parliaments, and in the wider international community."
3.45 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be obliged to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement, and I think noble Lords on all sides will share his pleasure in what was undoubtedly a successful conference—successful not only in the opinion of the Government but in that of at any rate those other participants to whom I have spoken. Before the Conference there was a lot of rather defeatist talk and writing about it and about the futility of the Commonwealth and how we should either leave it or break it up. I did not, and do not, share those opinions, and it is cheering to note how the Conference itself has refuted that view and the reasons for it.
I am glad, too, that the Conference remained informal and that the Secretariat has not become too strong. It must surely be a good and constructive thing that the Prime Ministers of so many and varied countries can, and do, exchange views at a conference of this kind. There is no other forum in the world that I know of in which this can happen, and I believe we should do well to do all we can to foster and encourage it.
3.47 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for reading the Prime Minister's Statement. I agree that there is no sign of the Commonwealth breaking up, and I am glad that that is so. With regard to British passport holders, I note from the Statement that Her Majesty's Government propose now

919
to seek bilateral discussions in the Commonwealth countries concerned. Does that mean that the attempt to get representatives of the countries concerned and the British Government together to discuss this matter has not proved practicable?
I see that the Secretary-General is to undertake a study of Commonwealth migration. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give some indication of precisely how that is going to be tackled. Finally, I should like to raise one general point. Has there been any discussion, either at the Conference or outside the Conference, on the possibility of achieving a common body of laws relating to human rights throughout the Commonwealth? It would be of great value to the Commonwealth it that could be achieved.
3.49 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition, for his forthright statement. I was personally interested, as I am sure the House was, to have his personal confirmation of the views of those he talked to about the success of the Conference. Certainly those of my colleagues who participated in this Conference and to whom I talked were indeed pleased, and not least by the nature of the personal relationships that were established. Noble Lords who have taken part in gatherings of this kind will realise that this in itself represents an additional bond and an extra strength that may be brought to the Commonwealth. I am sure the House is gratified by the feelings that have been expressed, and that there has been this strengthening, though of course we should make a mistake if we were to assume that there are not many real problems and differences; and I have mentioned some of them.
I am grateful to the noble Lord who spoke from the Liberal Benches. I do not know whether I can answer his questions specifically. On the point with regard to the Commonwealth Secretary-General's inquiry, I may say that he took soundings of Commonwealth countries in advance of the meeting. He has become involved in this, and can obviously do some useful clearing of ideas on the matter. This is a very difficult and in-
920
tractable problem. It is one that we have debated and one on which all our consciences have been rather severely torn. I do not think there is much more that I can usefully say, beyond saying that we have noted it and that if there is further information I will give it to the noble Lord.
On the interesting suggestion about a common body of laws, particularly in relation to human rights, this is not a subject on which I would express a final opinion. But of course, there has been a great deal of activity at the United Nations, and the International Conventions on Human Rights are there for people to ratify and honour. Obviously, there are many ways of strengthening the rule of law as we understand it, and some of the informal contacts—the sort of contacts that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has with Commonwealth lawyers—contribute to this. But I have noted what the noble Lord has said.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the existence of the Commonwealth Secretariat represents a very considerable strengthening of the whole fabric, by preparing the ground for such Conferences as this to face the awful stresses and strains which seem to be typical of the present day?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have not enough direct experience to answer that point. I know that before the Secretariat was set up there were those who had doubts as to whether this was the cheapest and best way, but I think that Mr. Arnold Smith's personal achievements, and the work of the Commonwealth Secretariat, have obviously justified it, and there is further work for it to do. Certainly it was the wish of the members of the Commonwealth that it should be used.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, might I, as a former Commonwealth Secretary, say that it seems to me that the most useful result of the Conference is to underline the fact that it is a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers for consultation and not to take decisions. It is a very brittle instrument, and if the majority of the members tried to enforce decisions on the minority I think it would break down altogether. It seemed to me that, even more than last

921
time, the Conference moved in the direction of consultation, and I think that is a satisfactory development.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may supplement the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, with regard to Mr. Arnold Smith's initiation of negotiations, in a general sense, on Commonwealth migration. I know that none of us wants to interfere with the internal arrangements of any member of the Commonwealth, but on a recent visit to Australia I was very struck by the fact that in Australia one rarely sees a black face. I wonder whether my noble friend could say whether any discussions have taken place, particularly with the Australians and with other parts of the white Commonwealth, with regard to this aspect. The Australians are almost screaming for immigrants from places like Britain and so on, and even from the Continent of Europe, but they seem to have dug in their heels with regard to coloured immigration. I was wondering whether any influence had been used with countries of that kind to see whether they could do anything to relieve the burden and whether this matter was discussed at the Conference.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure the whole House accepts the wisdom of the noble Marquess's remarks about this being a consultative body; and of course it does gain strength through mutual understanding because it has no power to impose solutions.
I think that my noble friend Lord Royle's question is of a kind that behoves me to treat with very great care. I think he is putting it from the standpoint of trying to relieve the problems of this country rather than seeking to advise Australia what she should do. On that basis I can only reply by saying that such consultations as take place in the
922
Commonwealth Conference are necessarily, and perhaps wisely, confidential.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I make a comment on the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about International Law as between Commonwealth and other countries? In 1966 the Third Committee, the Human Rights Committee, completed and passed two international Covenants, the Civil and Political Covenant and the Economic, Cultural and Social Covenant. When those two Covenants have been both signed and ratified by, I believe, 35 countries, it will be possible for the Committees to be set up; and these are very substantial Covenants for International Law.