Lords Sitting of 28 May 1970

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

BARONESS DACRE
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that Her Majesty has been pleased to terminate the abeyance of the Barony of Dacre in favour of Rachel Leila Douglas-Home. The Barony has been in abeyance since the death in 1965 of her father, Thomas Henry Viscount Hampden. A Writ of Summons has been issued in pursuance of Section 6 of the Peerage Act 1963, and the noble Lady attends at the Bar to take her seat.
After which, Baroness Dacre took the Oath.
The Lord Annaly—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TAXATION AND INCOMES: COMPARATIVE FIGURES
LORD LEATHERLAND: 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 by how many million pounds the taxation on personal incomes in 1969 exceeded that in 1964; and by how many million pounds wages and salaries in 1969 exceeded those in 1964.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in 1969 taxes paid on total personal income were £2,372 million greater than in 1964; wages and salaries were £6,385 million greater. The tax figure given covers taxes on all forms of incomes, and so should properly be compared, not with wages and salaries, but with total personal incomes, including National Insurance benefits, which were £10,820 million greater in 1969 than in 1964.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is this the Administration that forecast they would be able to fulfil their programme without any increase in taxation?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the wit of the noble Lord's supplementary escapes me, I am afraid.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his very enlightening and satisfactory Answer. Is he aware that it will give great satisfaction throughout the country, especially to wage and salary earners? Would it not be in the interests of the nation if as wide publicity as possible were given to these enlightening figures?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to pursue that point before I reply?
LORD CARRINGTON: No, my Lords; I hope the noble Lord will answer that question first.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what I thought would be relevant, too, is not only the taxation increase, but the fact that the number of roads, hospitals and schools and also other social benefits were increased. It is further true that during that time we increased our exports in two years by some 24 per cent., and had it not been for our fiscal policy that undoubtedly would not have been possible.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in Australia the sort of Question which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has asked, and the sort of Question which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, is about to ask is called a "Dorothy Dix", the definition of which is a question inspired by a Minister who wants to take some credit before he disappears into oblivion, and that it is usually greeted with the jeers it deserves?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I am sure it must be most disappointing that the figure which the Opposition use so often in their propaganda is seen to be not quite so certain as they try to make out.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not a fact that it is all very well for the people who have had these vast wage increases, but the people suffering are the ones who have not the power to extract them, and these are the people we should worry about?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree; and that of course hag some relevance to the Order which will be moved later to-day about supplementary benefits.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for the instructive figures which he has given us, may I ask whether he could add a commentary or explanation as to whether they are in real terms, or whether these figures are in terms of a devalued pound?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was comparing like with like. Both the taxes and the personal incomes are in money terms.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not a fact that it really is a matter of constant inflation?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend not be prepared to wager a pound with any member of the Opposition that he would still be reluctant to lose a pound?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition probably knows more about the Australian lady Dorothy Dix than I do, but am I in order in asserting now—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD LEATHERLAND: Am I in order in asking now whether it is not a fact that I inspired this Question myself, that I was its complete author and—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I do not know what has come over your Lordships. It might almost be thought that there was going to be an Election. But I think the noble Lord has extracted the maximum advantage from his Question, and the Opposition have done their best, too.

ARTS SUBSIDIES: COMPARATIVE FIGURES
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: 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 how much money has been provided by means of subsidy for the Arts during the last five years as compared with the five-year period up to 1964.]
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I should introduce this with music. Government expenditure on the Arts for the five-year period 1965–66 to 1969–70 amounted to £87·8 million. For the period 1960–61 to 1964–65 the corresponding figure was £40·1 million.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, could my noble friend tell me whether the very satisfactory rate of increase during that period was an annual rate of increase, or was it a more uneven increase?
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I happen to have some of these figures. In 1964 it was £10 million and then it rose steadily to £13, £15, £18, £20 and £24 million.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this Question was inspired purely for my own information?
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree with me that this is evidence of the improvement and liberalisation of our education?
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords, I am quite certain that whatever your Lordships have to say about some other pieces of activity of this Government you certainly cannot criticise the tremendous expenditure on and increase in enthusiasm which has taken place in the Arts generally.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, in view of the wide term "the Arts", may I, purely for information, ask whether it includes the art of pornography and the art of electioneering?
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could give us some idea how these figures compare with the expenditure in the same years in other countries—West Germany, Holland and other Continental countries.
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that that is another question. All I can say is that in the debate we had on the Arts I was able to show that our figures compare very favourably with those of any country in Europe.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give us any assurance that, following up this excellent work for the Arts, when the Labour Government are returned after this Election they will do something equally for the authors?
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: My Lords, naturally I cannot commit any future Government, though I assume that the noble Lord will as always, be very assiduous in looking after the interests of the authors and I am sure will put the Question again.

SOUTH AFRICAN CRICKET TOUR AND B.B.C. INTERVIEWS
BARONESSS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. With your Lordships' permission, I would like to alter the word "does" to "did not".
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the continual interviewing of demonstrators against the Test Match tour by the B.B.C. does not constitute a direct incitement to violence.]
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, programme content is the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities alone and the Government do not intervene. The B.B.C.'s duty is to report the news fairly and to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality. The B.B.C.
1170
have told my right honourable friend, the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, that they took care to maintain a fair balance between those who were in favour of the cricket tour taking place and those who were not.
BARONESSS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Would she not agree that mass media communication is a most dangerous instrument which can stir up emotions and hysteria much in the same way as Hitler did in Germany, and that the B.B.C. should take great care, as she said they have? I would ask her to consider whether both the producers and the announcers should not keep a fair balance and above all be careful not to betray their own preferences, as they do at present, by inclination or by accident.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, of course the mass media are dangerous, but they are also extremely educative. I am sure the noble Baroness would be the last to ask for any form of censorship over what goes out over television. I do not think that all of the last part of her supplementary arises. It is quite clear that it is a controversial subject which must be handled very carefully, but I have every confidence in the way the B.B.C. and Independent Television deal with these questions.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness—or perhaps the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would be the better to answer my Question, which is very erudite and precious. The Question is whether the Statement of the Prime Minister on this subject, which was reported fully verbatim by the B.B.C, might not have amounted to the felony of seditious libel—a felony which I think only the Lord Chancellor would understand—and whether the Attorney General and the Law Officers had considered this matter.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I think that that question ought to be treated with reserve; and I do not mean contempt.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us consider that the B.B.C. have been fair in putting both sides of the question? And is she further aware that there was

1171
quietude on the Opposition Benches when South Africa stopped d'Oliveira and nobody is making this a political gimmick because the Election is coming about.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, nobody can improve on what my noble friend says.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness why she said that the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, was not asking for censorship of the B.B.C.? I thought that that was exactly what she was asking for.
BARONESSS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to realise that I was not asking for censorship; I was asking for a fair deal for both sides. Now she has given me that assurance I hope we shall see it carried out.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I think that on the whole I was putting more politely what the noble Baroness was saying, but I am delighted that she is satisfied with my reply
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I know that this is a different question, but does the reply given by the noble Baroness apply to the dramatic exploitation of crashes, fires and other disasters, and is the way that this is done in the national interest?
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, that is another question, and perhaps the noble Viscount would care to put it down.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say, further to her point that the duty of the B.B.C. is to report news faithfully, whether she is aware and whether the B.B.C. are aware and will admit to a current report that freelance producers make themselves available to the B.B.C. to produce a telegenic happening at a point in time and space convenient to television cameras; and does not this constitute a distortion of news?
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I have heard of that, but of course I am quite unable to answer at this sort of notice.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does my noble friend think it appropriate that people who have not demonstrated but have merely expressed their opinions should be referred to as "demonstrators"?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that in this Election period it is very important that the B.B.C. commentators and questioners, who like asking very steeply slanted questions, should be careful to preserve a neutral balance?
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Yes, indeed, my Lords.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not going to try to help us?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend also say whether there is any way of requiring the national and local Press to observe a similar neutral balance?

DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION
2.54 p.m.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and I met representatives of the medical and dental professions this morning. They put to us in the strongest terms their view that the publication of the Report should not be delayed until after the General Election.
"My right honourable friend and I reaffirmed the Government view that the Report and the Government decisions on it should be published simultaneously. But in view of the strength of the representations made by the professions, we informed them that the date of publication, with the announcement of the Government's decisions would be brought forward to Thursday, June 4.

1173
"The representatives of the professions then sought, to use their own words, 'an unequivocal assurance that the Government would not in its decisions in any way modify the Kindersley recommendations either by phasing or by reducing the totality of the award.'
"My right honourable friend, in reply, stressed that the Government had not yet completed its consideration of what is an extremely complex Report and that he could not agree to give any indication of the Government's decisions before publication on June 4."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for making that rather unexpected Statement. The "usual channels" seem to have broken down on this occasion. I am beginning to expect it: I understand that the noble Lord had some trouble yesterday at Transport House, so perhaps this is just another indication of the way things happen. May I just ask the noble Baroness one question? Do I understand from the Statement that there is to be another meeting on June 4, or after June 4? Or what is going to happen after publication?
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I should think that there will be a meeting after publication. What I am announcing is the publication—the advancing of the date of the publication and the Government's decisions. I do apologise if the "usual channels" broke down.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am not complaining about that, but after the publication presumably something is going to happen. I was asking, what is going to happen after publication?
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, we do not know. That is between the Government and the B.M.A.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise to the noble Lord. We do try our best, sometimes in difficult circumstances, and I realise that he is not complaining too much. I did not understand his reference to communication between me and Transport House yesterday morning, because I was in New-foundland.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness for clarification and to thank her for making the Statement. Actually I did know about it, because I asked whether there was to be one. May I ask exactly what is going to happen next Thursday? Are we going to get the publication and the Government's decision on that day? I am not clear about it.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the B.M.A. have asked for an unequivocal assurance that the Government would not in their decisions in any way modify the Kindersley Report. The answer is that the Government have not yet completed their considerations and could not agree to give any indications of their decisions before publication on June 4. I think noble Lords will get them both together.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I understand that. Are we therefore going to get the publication of the Report and the publication of the Government decision on it?
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.

BARCLAYS BANK TRUST COMPANY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I do not propose to move the Third Reading of this Bill.
STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
Reported, without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

COATBRIDGE BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
2.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. ADMINISTRATION
The Committee have reviewed in detail the duties at present entrusted to Sir George Mills, as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and to Sir Kenneth Mackintosh, as Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain, Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, Serjeant-at-Arms and Agent to the Administration Commitlee. They take account of the facts that The Queen has recently approved the appointment of Admiral Sir Frank Twiss to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod in succession to Sir George Mills with effect from 1st September, 1970; and that Sir Kenneth Mackintosh will be retiring from his various posts at the end of the year.
The Committee have approved a recommendation from the Administration Committee that, on the retirement of Sir Kenneth Mackintosh, the latter Committee should appoint as their Agent Admiral Sir Frank Twiss, to carry out on their behalf the control of the accommodation and services in the House of Lords area of the Palace of Westminster.
So far as ceremonial duties are concerned, the Lord Great Chamberlain has agreed that, in due course, the Gentleman Usher should take over the Secretarial responsibilities hitherto discharged by Sir Kenneth Mackintosh.
The Yeoman Usher will act as Deputy to the Gentleman Usher for such duties as may be assigned to him.
The duties of the post of Serjeant-at-Arms are left over for future consideration.
1176
Subject to this reservation, the Committee seek the approval of the House for the principle of concentrating in the office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod the administrative and ceremonial responsibilities at present carried out by Sir George Mills and Sir Kenneth Mackintosh respectively.
2. ACCOMMODATION
The Committee were informed that approval has been given for the scheme to provide additional accommodation for the House of Lords by building over State Officers' Court.
Work on the scheme will start in the Summer Recess 1971 with completion by the end of the Summer Recess 1972.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee agreed to the Report of the Sub-Committee on the grading of the two posts of Principal Clerk, Judicial Office, and the Principal Clerk, Committee and Private Bill Office in the Parliament Office. The Committee authorised the salary consequent upon the revised grading of these posts with effect from the 1st March, 1970.
4. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of Establishment Circular D.E.O. (70) (Pay) No. 7 (Central Pay Increase) dated 9th April, 1970, to applicable staff of the House of Lords.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Message from the Commons, requesting "that the Lords will be pleased to return to them the Administration of Justice Bill because an Amendment which the Commons had made to the Bill was not communicated to your Lordships": read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that this Bill be returned to the Commons as requested?
The Bill will be returned.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
Returned from the Commons yesterday, with certain of the Amendments agreed to; with certain other Amendments agreed to, with a consequential Amendment; with one other Amendment

1177
disagreed to, with an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill; and with the remaining Amendments disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GOODS AND SERVICES) BILL
Returned from the Commons yesterday, with the Amendments disagreed to and with a Reason for such disagreement.
RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS AND PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons yesterday, agreed to, with Amendments.

RATE REBATES (LIMITS OF INCOME) ORDER 1970
3.0 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the purpose of this particular Order which I commend to the House, is to maintain broadly the coverage of the rate-rebate scheme. The House has already approved in February this year a corresponding Order for Scotland. Since this is an unusual day in the life of this Parliament, I do not propose at this moment to go any further into this matter, in the belief that the House will already know what this is about and approve the purpose of it. If, however, any noble Lord would like any more background detail or information, I stand ready to give it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Order 1970 laid before the House on May 15, 1970, be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (DETERMINATION OF REQUIRE MENTS) REGULATIONS 1970
BARONESSS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before the House on May 15, 1970, be approved. These Regulations increase the rates of requirements laid down under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966. Together with an allowance for rent, they will, if approved, make up the new guaranteed levels of income for retired people, and others not in full-time work, from November 2. In view of the time, I will move this formally, and I will reply if any noble Lord wishes to raise a point. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1970, laid before the House on 15th May 1970, be approved.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GOODS AND SERVICES) BILL
3.3 p.m.
BARONESSS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (44) as first printed for the Lords]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out "or"
Clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert:
"or
(c) to purchase or store building materials for supply to any public body for the construction of any new buildings or works."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason: —
Because it is not in the public interest to prevent local authorities from co-operating in the purchase of building materials.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, since the House debated and passed these Amendments, at the beginning of April, the Government have of course given very careful consideration to the points which the noble Lord who moved them made during the debate. I am sorry to say, however, that they have not felt able to accept the Amendments. I am sure the House will not want me to repeat in detail the points made on behalf of the Government by my noble friend Lord Kennet, in the earlier debate, but perhaps I might remind your Lordships that the general issue was covered very clearly during that debate. I think there is not very much point in going over the details again. If there are any particular points to be raised, I can of course look at them, but I cannot feel that there is any danger to the builders' merchants, and they have nothing to fear from this Bill. In the circumstances, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Dovies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, with a further Amendment to the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the further Commons Amendment to the Administration of Justice Bill be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their further Amendment. The further Amendment is:
Schedule 2, page 39, line 18, leave out from ("Rolls") to end of line 19 and insert (", the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor").
This Amendment was carried in the Commons but was not carried into the Bill as it came up to your Lordships from the Commons. The Bill was accordingly
1180
returned to the Commons, and this Amendment has now been made. It is purely consequential to Amendments 1 and 2 which were considered by your Lordships on Tuesday of last week. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their further Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS AND PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill 71 as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1.]
Clause 2, page 2, line 35, after "sum" insert "or sums".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. As your Lordships know, when the imminence of Dissolution was announced there were a number of Bills in different stages of completion. Some of them it was impossible to complete—for instance, the Animals Bill, which some of your Lordships will remember: it was allotted to a Committee in the other place in January but never in fact started in Committee. Some, like the Administration of Justice Bill were very near completion. Then there were other cases in which all parties had to consider what was the best course to take. The Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill had received a cordial welcome on Second Reading. It had had three days in Committee; it was anticipated that it would be another day, or possibly two days, in Committee. The choice, therefore, was between either dropping the Bill altogether and all Parties agreeing that the Bill should go through in substance as it then was but with certain agreed Amendments, and that anything in substance contentious should be dropped. All Parties agreed to that. So the Bill now comes to your Lordships, after such Amendments as were

1181
made in Committee, and with a number of further Amendments which have been agreed and nearly all of which are primarily of a drafting character.
Amendment No. 1 was an Opposition Amendment carried in Committee. The clause as originally drafted provided for a judge being able to order one spouse to pay a lump sum to another spouse. The Amendment added the words "or sums". This proposal was resisted by the Government, but was carried, and as it has been agreed that that which is contentious shall be dropped the Government have accepted the position and are not seeking to restore it. In those circumstances, I do not think I need go into the detail of the arguments on one side or the other. I doubt whether the Amendment will have very much effect, but I do not think it will do any harm. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2 and 3.]
Clause 5, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
"( ) any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;"
line 27, at end insert—
"( ) any physical or mental disability of the child".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects I will take Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. These linked Amendments specify physical or mental disability of a spouse or a child of the family as matters to which the court must have regard when considering an order for financial provision. I should have thought it was clear (and it was our original view) that a court should have regard to such a factor wherever it was present. The Opposition took the view that it would be more satisfactory that it should be stated in the Bill, and the Government have accepted that. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 4.]
Clause 9, page 10, line 28, after "(b)" insert "or".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. This Amendment merely inserts the word "or", which was inadvertently omitted in the printing. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5.]
Clause 10, page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (10).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. May I also speak to Amendment No. 14, which is really the same point. I am taking these Amendments rather shortly, but if any noble Lord would like me to explain any of them I shall be most happy to do so. I propose now to state what is the effect of these Amendments. This Amendment omits from Clause 9 the provision in subsection (10) which entitles a would-be applicant for a variation order after the death of the payer to be treated for the purposes of Section 162(1) of the Judicature Act as a person "interested in the estate" of the deceased person. The provision has been omitted not because it was wrong, but because it was found to be already provided for in existing legislation. As I have said, Amendment No. 14 is virtually the same point. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 6 and 7.]
Clause 11. page 11, line 42, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) Where on an application made under this section in relation to an order to which

1183
this section applies it appears to the court that by reason of—

(a) a change in the circumstances of the person entitled to, or liable to make, payments under the order since the order was made, or

(b) the changed circumstances resulting from the death of the person so liable,

the amount received by the person entitled to payments under the order in respect of a period after those circumstances changed or after the death of the person liable to make payments under the order, as the case may be, exceeds the amount which the person so liable or his or her personal representatives should have been required to pay, the court may order the respondent to the application to pay to the applicant such sum, not exceeding the amount of the excess, as the court thinks just.
This section applies to an order made by virtue of section 1, 2(1)(a) or (b). 3(2)(a) or (b), 6(5) or 6(6)(a), (b), (d) or (e) of this Act."
Ciause11, page 12, line 15, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) An application under this section may be made by the person liable to make payments under an order to which this section applies or his or her personal representatives and may be made against the person entitled to payments under the order or her or his personal representatives.
(3) An application under this section may be made in proceedings in the High Court or a county court for—

(a) the variation or discharge of the order to which this section applies, or

(b) leave to enforce, or the enforcement of, the payment of arrears under that order;

but except as aforesaid such an application shall be made to a county court and accordingly references in this section to the court are references to the High Court or a county court, as the circumstances require.
(4)An order under this section for the payment of any sum may provide for the payment of that sum by instalments of such amount as may be specified in the Order."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may deal also with Amendment No. 7 and speak also to Amendment No. 40, which is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. The drafting of Clause 11 was found to have a number of defects so it was redrafted, and these linked Amendments have a dual effect. In the first place, they confine Clause 11 to the recovery of excess payments made under an order which ought previously to be reduced by reason of a change of circumstances and, secondly, they enable an application for this purpose to be made notwithstanding that the order in
1184
question has already ceased to have effect. There are cases in which such an application should be possible. Amendment No. 40 is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is worth saying one word on this, because the noble and learned Lord will probably agree that two new clauses, Amendments Nos. 18 and 22, are, as it were, the other half of these Amendments, and they raise the same point. It may be that we can expedite matters even further if we take that into account when we consider those Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 8—13.]
Clause 15, page 15, line 26, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (2) and (2A)".
Clause 15, page 15, line 26, after "Court" insert "or a county court".
Clause 15, page 15, line 29, after first "the" insert "High Court or a county".
Clause 15, page 15, line 31, at end insert—
"(2A) A county court shall not entertain an application under this section, or an application for permission to make an application under this section, unless it would have jurisdiction by virtue of section 7 of the Family Provision Act 1966 (which confers jurisdiction on county courts in proceedings under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 or section 26 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 if the value of the deceased's net estate does not exceed £5.000 or such larger sum as may be fixed by order of the Lord Chancellor) to hear and determine proceedings for an order under the said section 26 (application for maintenance out of deceased's estate by former spouse) in relation to the deceased's estate."
Clause 15, page 15, line 32, leave out "the" and insert "a".
Clause 15, page 15, line 41, leave out second "the" and insert "a".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, may I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 13 inclusive, and may I speak also to Amendment No. 15 which is on the same point? These Amendments give to the county courts jurisdiction to vary a maintenance agreement after the death of one of the parties where the estate of

1185
the deceased does not exceed £5,000 in value. Your Lordships may remember that when, in 1938, power was first given to make a grant out of an estate, for example to somebody who had been cut out of her husband's will, this was something quite new, and accordingly it was thought better to confine the jurisdiction to the High Court. Then in 1966 the Chancery Court drew attention to the fact that where an estate was something less than £5,000 the proportion that might be used up in costs in the High Court was undesirable, and expressed the view that under that figure the county court should have jurisdiction. In 1966 we extended the jurisdiction and allowed to go to the county court those cases where the estate was less than £5,000. This will bring the matter into line so far as these applications are concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 14 and 15.]
Clause 15, page 16, line 3, leave out from "9" to end of line 9.
Clause 15, page 16, line 9, at end insert—
"(6) Subsection (3) of section 7 of the Family Provision Act 1966 (transfer to county court of proceedings commenced in the High Court) and paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5) thereof (provisions relating to proceedings commenced in county court before coming into force of order of the Lord Chancellor under that section) shall apply in relation to proceedings consisting of any such application as is referred to in subsection (2A) above as they apply in relation to any such proceedings as are referred to in subsection (1) of the said section 7."
3.16 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may take Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 together, because I have already spoken to them in moving other Amendments. I referred to Amendment No. 14 when dealing with Amendment No. 5, and to Amendment No. 15 when dealing with Amendments Nos. 8 to 13. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 16 and 17.]
Clause 16, page 16, line 14, leave out from "applicant")" to "against" in line 15.
Clause 16, page 16, page 17, line 32, after "child" insert "of the family".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects may I take Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 together, and move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments? These are merely linked, drafting Amendments intended to clarify the wording of Clause 16(1) and Clause 16(4). I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 18.]
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage
".—(1) Where—

(a) an order to which this section applies has ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the person entitled to payments under the order, and

(b) the person liable to make payments under the order or his or her personal representatives made payments in accordance with it in respect of a period after the date of such remarriage in the mistaken belief that the order was still subsisting,

no proceedings in respect of a cause of action arising out of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall be maintainable by the person so liable or his or her personal representatives against the person so entitled or her or his personal representatives; but on an application made under this section the court may exercise the powers conferred on it by subsection (2) below.
This section applies to an order made by virtue of section 2(1)(a) or (b) or 6(6)(a) or (b) of this Act and to any such order as is referred to in subsection (1) or (2) of section 21 thereof.
(2) The court may order the respondent to an application made under this section to pay to the applicant a sum equal to the amount of the payments made in respect of the period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above or, if it appears to the court that it would be unjust to make that order, it may either order the respondent to pay to the applicant such lesser sum as it thinks fit or dismiss the application.
(3) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 11 of this Act shall apply to an application made under this section and to an order made on

1187
such an application as they apply to an application made under that section and to an order made on the last mentioned application, and the references to the court in this section shall be construed in accordance with subsection (3) of that section as applied by this subsection.
(4) The clerk of a magistrates' court to whom any payments under an order to which this section applies are required to be made, and the collecting officer under an attachment of earnings order made to secure payments under the first mentioned order, shall not be liable—

(a) in the case of that clerk, for any act done by him in pursuance of the first mentioned order after the date on which that order ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the person entitled to payment under it, and

(b) in the case of the collecting officer, for any act done by him after that date in accordance with any enactment or rule of court specifying how payments made to him in compliance with the attachment of earnings orders are to be dealt with,

if, but only if, the act was one which he would have been under a duty to do had the first mentioned order not ceased to have effect as aforesaid and the act was done before notice in writing of the fact that the person so entitled had remarried was given to him by or on behalf of that person, the person liable to make payments under the first mentioned order or the personal representatives of either of those persons.
(5) In this section 'collecting officer', in relation to an attachment of earnings order, means the officer of the High Court, the registrar of a county court or the clerk of a magistrates' court to whom a person makes payments in compliance with the order."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. This is the first new clause and it confers upon the court a discretionary power to order the repayment, in whole or in part, of any sums paid under a divorce court maintenance order which have been paid after the remarriage of the payee and in ignorance of that remarriage. It is really a redraft of Clause 11(2) of the Bill as presented. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 19.]
Clause 26, page 22, line 27, after "court" insert "(except where the context otherwise requires)".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. This Amendment excludes the definition of "the court", as meaning the High Court or a divorce county court, in those cases where the context otherwise requires. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 20.]
Clause 27, page 22, line 44, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects may I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20, and speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 to 39 and Nos. 41 and 42 which are the same point. This is merely an Amendment to leave out the word "be" and insert "have been". The drafting Amendment substitutes in Clause 27 for "deemed to be made" the words "deemed to have been made". The object of the Amendment is to achieve consistency of language throughout, and similar Amendments have been put down to Schedule 1 which are in exactly the same form and are Amendments Nos. 33 to 39 and 41 and 42 to which I have referred. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have never seen so many "has beens" in my life, and I am glad that they are confined to the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 21.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Validation of certain void or voidable decrees
". Any decree of divorce, nullity of marriage or judicial separation which, apart from this section, would be void or voidable on the ground only that the provisions of section 33

1189
of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 (which restricts the making of decrees of dissolution or separation where children are affected) or of section 2 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958 (corresponding provision replaced by the said section 33) had not been complied with when the decree was made absolute or granted, as the case may be, shall be deemed always to have been valid unless—

(a) before the commencement of this Act the court declared the decree to be void; or

(b) in proceedings for the annulment of the decree pending at the said commencement the court declares the decree to be void."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. This new clause deals with the problem of decrees which might be challenged as being void or voidable fox failure to comply with Section 33 of the 1965 Act. As a result of the new clause, such decrees will be treated as having been valid unless already annulled before the commencement of this Bill when it becomes an Act, or subsequently annulled in proceedings then pending. It is a point on which there has been some conflict of judicial opinion, and it is desirable to clarify it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVJLLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, perhaps this is the most important of the new clauses that have been inserted in another place. There are a number of different ways in which one could have dealt with this matter. I am certainly not going into them, and they were discussed, albeit a little briefly, in another place. I would suggest that this method of resolving the difficulty is the right one, is unlikely to cause any difficulty, and certainly will clear up what would otherwise be a grave dubiety in the law.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 22.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Sums paid after cessation of order of magistrates' court by reason of remarriage may be ordered to be repaid in certain cases
". After section 13 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 there shall be inserted the following section—
Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage
13A.—(1) Where—

(a) an order to which this section applies or a provision thereof has ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the person entitled to payments under the order, and

(b) the person liable to make payments under the order made payments in accordance with it in respect of a period after the date of such remarriage in the mistaken belief that the order or provision was still subsisting,

no proceedings in respect of a cause of action arising out of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall be maintainable by the person so liable or his or her personal representatives against the person so entitled or her or his personal representatives, but on an application made under this section the court may exercise the powers conferred on it by the following subsection.
This section applies to an order in relation to which subsection (4) of section 7 of this Act, as amended by the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, applies.
(2) The court may order the respondent to an application made under this section to pay to the applicant a sum equal to the amount of the payments made in respect of the period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of this section or, if it appears to the court that it would be unjust to make that order, it may either order the respondent to pay to the applicant such lesser sum as it thinks fit or dismiss the application.
(3) An application under this section may be made by the person liable to make payments under an order to which this section applies or his or her personal representatives and may be made against the person entitled to payments under the order or her or his personal representatives.
(4) An application under this section may be made in proceedings in the High Court or a county court for leave to enforce, or the enforcement of, the payment of arrears under an order to which this section applies, but except as aforesaid such an application shall be made to a county court and accordingly references in this section to the court are references to the High Court or a county court, as the circumstances require.
(5) An order under this section for the payment of any sum may provide for the payment of that sum by instalments of such amount as may be specified in the order.
(6) The jurisdiction conferred on a county court by this section shall be exercisable by a county court notwithstanding that by reason of the amount claimed in an application under this section the jurisdiction would not but for this subsection be exercisable by a county court.
(7) Section 13(1) and (2) of this Act shall not apply to an order under this section.
(8) The clerk of a magistrates' court to whom any payments under an order to which this section applies are required to be made, and the collecting officer under an attachment of earnings order made to secure payments under the first mentioned order, shall not be liable—

(a) in the case of that clerk, for any act done by him in pursuance of the first mentioned order after the date on which that order or a provision thereof ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the person entitled to payments under it, and

(b) in the case of the collecting officer, for any act done by him after that date in accordance with any enactment or rule of court specifying how payments made to him in compliance with the attachment of earnings order are to be dealt with,

if, but only if, the act was one which he would have been under a duty to do had the first mentioned order or a provision thereof not ceased to have effect as aforesaid and the act was done before notice in writing of the fact that the person so entitled had remarried was given to him by or on behalf of that person, the person liable to make payments under the first mentioned order or the personal representatives of either of those persons.
(9) In this section 'collecting officer' in relation to an attachment of earnings order, means the officer of the High Court, the registrar of a county court or the clerk of a magistrates' court to whom a person makes payments in compliance with the order."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. This new clause inserts in the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 a section corresponding to the new clause, conferring on the Court a similar discretionary power to order repayment of sums paid under a magistrates' court order after that order ceased to have effect by reason of the remarriage of the payee.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 23.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Restriction on enforcement in High Court or county court of certain orders of magistrates' courts
At the end of section 13 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 there shall be added the following subsections:—
1192
'(5) A person shall not be entitled to enforce through the High Court or any county court the payment of any arrears due under an order made by virtue of this Act without the leave of that court if those arrears became due more than twelve months before proceedings to enforce the payments of them are begun.
(6) The court hearing an application for the grant of leave under subsection (5) of this section may refuse leave, or may grant leave subject to such rectrictions and conditions (including conditions as to the allowing of time for payment or the making of payments by instalments) as that court thinks proper, or may remit the payment of such arrears or any part thereof.
(7) An application for the grant of leave under the said subsection (5) shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by rules of court'."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in then-Amendment No. 23. This Amendment extends to maintenance orders made by a magistrates' court and sought to be enforced through the High Court for a county court the same restrictions on the recovery of stale arrears as is imposed by Clause 10 on the recovery of stale arrears under an order made by the Divorce Court.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 24.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Minor corrections of Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960, s. 7(3)
". Section 7(3) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960 (which provides that where after the making by a magistrates' court of a matrimonial or interim order proceedings between, and relating to the marriage of, the parties to the proceedings in which the order was made have been begun in the High Court, the High Court may direct that the order shall cease to have effect on a date specified by that court) shall be amended as follows:—

(a) after the words 'the High Court', where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words 'or a county court';

(b) for the words 'the High Court', where next occurring, there shall be substituted the words 'the court in which the proceedings or any application made therein are or is pending'; and

(c) for the words 'the High Court may specify' there shall be substituted the words 'may be specified in the direction'."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. This new clause remedies an oversight which occurred when the Act of 1967 transferred jurisdiction in undefended divorce to the county court.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 25.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Jurisdiction of, and appeal on question of fact from, county courts
"—(1) The jurisdiction conferred on a county court by section 11 or section (Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) of this Act or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 thereto shall be exercisable by a county court notwithstanding that by reason of the amount claimed in an application made under either of those sections or the said paragraph 5. as the case may be, the jurisdiction would not but for this subsection be exercisable by a county court.
(2) At the end of subsection (2) of section 109 of the County Courts Act 1959 (appeals on questions of fact) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
'(g) any proceedings on an application for an order under section 13A of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1.960, section 11 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, section 15 of that Act, section (Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) thereof or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 thereto.'"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25. This new clause confers on a county court jurisdiction, irrespective of the amount involved, in the case of an application for the repayment of excess payments under a maintenance order. It also confers a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on a question of fact from an order of a county court made on such an application, or on any other applications specified in this new clause.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 26.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of reference to child in 1965 c. 72, s. 2.
". In section 2(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 (which provides that in determining an application to allow the presentation of a petition for divorce within three years from the date of the marriage the judge shall have regard to the interests of any relevant child) for the words 'relevant child 'there shall be substituted the words 'child of the family within the meaning of Part I of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970'."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. May I also speak to Amendment No. 52? This Amendment substitutes in Section 2 of the 1965 Act a reference to "child of the family" for the existing reference to "relevant child". Your Lordships may remember that the expression in the Bill "child of the family "is of a much wider nature than has previously been covered, and this is to make the two Acts consistent with one another. Amendment No. 52 in consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, one point arises on this subject, and on Amendment No. 52. As I understand that Amendment, the retention of the definition in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 is necessary only on the assumption that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, does not become law. As it is going to become law there will be no necessity for this retention of the reference to Section 41(3) after January 1 next. I hope that this matter can be easily remedied by perhaps the Statute Law Repeals Bill, but, since the matter obviously could not have been dealt with at an earlier stage, before one knew what was going to happen to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, it has been left like this. I think it could have been dealt with in a much easier way. I hope this point will be borne in mind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 27.]
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Construction of references to remarriage in 1965 c. 72, c. 26
".Section 26 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965 (which authorises the making of orders for maintenance out of a deceased's estate for a former spouse who has not remarried and provides that maintenance by way of periodical payments out of the estate shall terminate not later than his or her death or remarriage) shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if after subsection (5) there were inserted the following subsection:—
(5A) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that references in this section to remarriage include references to a marriage which is by law void or avoidable.'"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. May I also speak to Amendment No. 32A? This is a clause which removes a doubt about the circumstances in which remarriage may debar a former spouse from applying for maintenance. Amendment No. 32A is consequential partly on Amendment No. 24, with which we have already dealt, and partly on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 28 to 30.]
Clause 29, page 23, line 24, after "thereof" insert "not being a spouse in whom is vested (whether solely or as a joint tenant) a legal estate in fee simple or a legal term of years absolute in the dwelling house."
Clause 29, page 23, line 24, leave out "purposes of" and insert "purpose only of determining whether he or she has rights of occupation under".
Clause 29, page 23, line 26, leave out from "interest" to end of line 28.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, may I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30? These are linked drafting Amendments designed to ensure that Clause 29 carries out the recommendation in paragraph 59 of the Law Commission's Report No. 25 more clearly than it does in its present form.
1196
That is to say, they are, in substance, drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 31.]
Clause 32, transpose Clause 32 to after Clause 27.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31. This simply transposes one clause into a more suitable position in the Bill. It transposes Clause 32 to come in after Clause 27.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 32.]
Clause 35, page 25, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
3.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32. Amendment No. 32 deletes from the Bill a subsection which provided that the courts, in interpreting the Act, might look at the Report of the Law Commission on which the Act was based. That subsection was welcomed, I think, on all sides of this House, and by certain noble and learned Lords, but violent objection was taken to it in the other place by the Opposition. The Bar Council did not like it and the Law Society did not like it and some of the judges did not like it. I have never been able to understand why. I still think it would have been a sensible clause to have. However, under the all-Party agreement by which it was agreed that the Bill was to go through this Session, contentious matters must be dropped and the Government have given way. Perhaps it is a question that we can discuss at some time when we consider what we have not yet considered, an outstanding Report of the Law Commission on the whole question of the interpretation of Statutes.

1197
However, it is obviously a question which arouses differences of view. It has always seemed to me that if one is enacting a Bill which is attached to a Report of a body like the Law Commission, or perhaps even the Criminal Law Revision Committee—a draft Bill attached to a Report in which they explain why they have used certain words rather than some other words, and what the mischief is at which the proposed Act is aimed—it is only sensible, when the judges come to deal with it, that they should be able to read the Report. There are two views about it, and for the reasons to which I have referred the Government have given way. Therefore I respectfully advise the House to accept this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the Law Commission clause, as it has come to be known, has indeed caused a lot of trouble. The noble and learned Lord is quite right in saying that nobody opposed it here; indeed, it was supported by certain noble and learned Lords, and I think it, or an equivalent clause, was inserted into the Animals Bill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. But the horror and consternation which greeted me in another place, when I told my colleagues there that I had said nothing rude about it at all, took my breath away; and there has since developed in the Press and in various other quarters a tremendous amount of controversy about it. I think that the noble and learned Lord is quite right and that this is not a matter which we ought to consider putting into legislation at the moment without a debate on the wider subject of the interpretation of Statutes.
There is also a further point on this Bill. It was tolerably safe to leave this clause in when the Bill left this House, because all that had been done was to clear up a few very minor, almost verbal, drafting matters. But now, as the House sees, we have no fewer than six new clauses. Moreover, great areas of the Bill have been substantially redrafted, and the more that happens the less use a statutory power to refer only to the Law Commission's Report becomes. It would be necessary to refer to the
1198
speeches, and possibly the Judges would, but they would do so without any statutory authority, without its being possible to argue the matter before them. They would have to refer to the speeches in both Houses which explained why the changes had been made. Certainly, in view of the changes which have been made in the Bill I welcome the fact that the Government have given way on this point and I hope they will not put in another such clause before we have had a wide-ranging debate on the matter.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I wish, very briefly, to put the pages of history right. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said that nobody in this House opposed this provision at the earlier stages of the Bill. I opposed it, and I explained at some length why I opposed it. I said that it was traditional that when interpreting a law the Judges paid attention to the wording of that law and did not pay attention to any background speeches which Ministers or others might have delivered in explanation of the Bill when they were introducing it into their respective Houses. I do not wish to say whether I think the change is right or wrong. I know that I am usually right on most things, but I shall not press the point now. I merely wanted to have the record right for posterity.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I had forgotten.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said. Some day, I agree, we ought to return to discuss in this House the whole question of the interpretation of Statutes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 32A–42.]
Clause 35, page 25, line 35, after "31" insert "(Minor corrections of Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act I960, s. 7(3)), (Construction of references to remarriage in Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, s. 26)".
Schedule 1, page 26, line 39, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, page 27, line 8, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, line 17, leave out "be" and insert "have been".

1199
Schedule 1, line 25, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, line 32, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, page 28, line 6, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, line 15, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, line 23, leave out paragraph 5 and insert:—
"5. An application may be made under this paragraph in relation to an order to which this paragraph applies in the like circumstances as those in which an application may be made under section 11 of this Act, and the provisions of that section shall apply to such an application and to an order made on such an application as they apply to an application made under that section and to an order made on the last mentioned application.
This paragraph applies to an order made, or deemed to have been made, under any of the following provisions of the Act of 1965. that is to say, sections 15, 16(1)(a) and (b), 20(1), 21 and 22, sections 16(1)(a) and (b) as applied by section 16(3) and by section 19, section 34(1, in so far as it applies to maintenance, and section 34(3)."
Schedule 1, line 45, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
Schedule 1, line 47, leave out "be" and insert "have been".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as they are consecutive, may I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32A to 42 inclusive. These are all Amendments to which I have already referred when taking other Amendments. I referred to No. 32A when discussing Amendment No. 27; I referred to Nos. 33 to 39 when discussing Amendment No. 20; I referred to No. 40 when discussing Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, and I referred to Nos. 41 and 42 when discussing Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord moves Amendment No. 43, may I say that it appears to me, although it may be heresy, that Amendments Nos. 43 to 48 inclusive really fall into the category of drafting and consequential. They are mostly minor points of substance and I certainly should have no objection if the House considered them en bloc.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that rather different considerations apply to some of these Amendments. However, I shall take them very shortly and in groups.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 43–45.]
Schedule 2, page 30, line 31, leave out ''under" and insert "Part I of".
Schedule 2, page 30, line 33, leave out "'that Act'" and insert "from 'section 22' onwards".
Schedule 2, page 30, line 34, leave out "the said Act of 1965 or under".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45. I agree that these are really drafting and I do not think I need say anything more about them.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 46.]
Schedule 2, page 30, line 36, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 39 and insert:
"(6) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'(3) A divorce county court shall not by virtue of this section have jurisdiction to exercise any power under—

(a) section 26 or 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965; or

(b) section 10, 11, 15 or (Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 thereto;

but without prejudice to the exercise by virtue of section 7 of the Family Provision Act 1966 of any power exercisable by a county court under the said section 26 or 27 or to the exercise by virtue of any such provision of the said Act of 1970 as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection of any power exercisable by a county court under that provision;'."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46. This Amendment is consequential on the inclusion in the Bill of the new provisions giving further jurisdiction to the county courts.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 47 and 48.]
Schedule 1, page 30, line 40, leave out from beginning to second "the" and insert:—
"(c) in subsection (4), for the words from "section 24' onwards there shall be substituted".
Schedule 1, page 30, line 41, leave out "or".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. These are linked drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 49.]
Schedule 2, page 30, line 43, leave out subparagraph (2) and insert:—
"(2) In section 7(1) of the said Act of 1967 (which specifies the authority having power to make rules of court for the purposes of certain enactments) the word 'or' at the end of paragraph (b) shall be omitted and after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words 'or
(d) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (c) of this subsection, Part I of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, and Schedule 1 thereto, except proceedings in the county court under section 10, 11, 15 or (Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of remarriage) or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1'."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49. This Amendment substitutes a new sub-paragraph (2) in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2. The question is whether the proceedings should be governed by the County Court Rules or by the Matrimonial Causes Rules. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 50.]
Schedule 2, page 31, line 21, at end insert:—
"5. At the end of Schedule 8 to the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (maintenance
1202
orders to which Part II of that Act applies) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
'10. An order for periodical or other payments made under Part I of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970'."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50. This Amendment includes orders for periodical payments made under Part I of the Bill in the orders to which the enforcement provisions of the Administration of Justice Bill 1970, now awaiting Royal Assent, apply. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if it is not improper to suggest it, this will work only if the Administration of Justice Bill receives the Royal Assent before this Bill, because otherwise it will be the wrong way round. But will the noble and learned Lord confirm—I am sure that this is right—that this is part of the material on which he has promised consolidation? There really is nothing more unsatisfactory than having two Bills both receiving the Royal Assent on the same day and one amending the other, because it means to say that we have made the most imperfect job of the first. I hope that this will be cleared up by consolidation, because I should be very unwilling to leave it in this form. May I also suggest that the last three Amendments are drafting and consequential?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords; I quite agree. I hope that that course can be taken. The difficulty arises because the Government never know which of two Bills is going to receive the Royal Assent first, and they are sometimes surprised by the one which does. This Bill was very much in the balance all last week; that is to say, whether the Parties as a whole would agree to pass it as it was, or whether the whole thing should be dropped. So I agree with what the noble and learned Viscount has said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 51–53.]
Schedule 3, page 31, line 33, at end insert "except section 25(4) and (5) as applied by section 28(2) of that Act".
Schedule 3, page 31, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 and insert:
"Section 46(2) except so far as it applies for the interpretation of section 41(3) of that Act".
In the Title, line 9, leave out from "make" to "to" in line 17 and insert "other amendments of the law relating to matrimonial proceedings".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am content to adopt the course suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, if the House approves. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53. Amendment No. 51 is in substance drafting; Amendment No. 52 I have already referred to when moving Amendment No. 26, and Amendment No. 53 is a consequential Amendment to the Title of the Bill which is required because of the inclusion in the Bill of the new clauses. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
AGRICULTURE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
BUILDING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
EQUAL PAY (No. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL SERVICES BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
TREES BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

FINANCE BILL
Brought before the Commons.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in moving the First Reading of the Finance Bill, may I say that it is proposed to take the Second Reading and the remaining stages of the Bill at the conclusion of other business? I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read la.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
3.40 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE. BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, the Commons Amendment to words restored to the Bill and the Commons consequential Amendment be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMEND MENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENT TO WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 67 as first printed for the Lords, Commons Amendments and Reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[Nos.1 and 2.]
Clause 7, page 4, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) If the amount payable to a seaman under subsection (1) of this section exceeds £50 or such other amount as may be prescribed by regulations made under section 9 of this Act and it is not practicable to pay the whole of it at the time of discharge, not less than £50 or. as the case may be, the amount so prescribed shall be paid to him at that time and the balance within 7 days of that time."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill:
Page 5, line 2, leave out "his"
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the words so restored to the Bill. I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to speak to Nos. 1 to 7, relating to Clauses 7, 8 and 9, which are Amendments and Commons Reasons. Your Lordships will recall our discussions on Report stage on these clauses, particularly on the first Amendment, and will understand from what I said on that occasion why the Government are unable to accept these Amendments. They are conceived in an admirable intention, to enable crews' wages to be calculated ashore in a modern way and to save the master the burden of doing so at a time when he is occupied with bringing the ship to port. However, this will be done largely at the expense of the seaman, who will not always know on discharge what balance of wages is due to him, and will receive only £50 or some prescribed amount at that time; and he may have to wait up to seven days for the balance and for a statement of account. We do not think that that is good enough, and on these grounds the Government are unable to accept the Amendments.
1206
I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the words so restored to the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think the House will agree that it will be quite convenient to deal with Amendments Nos. 1 to 7 en bloc, because they all relate to the same vexed question of the wages of seamen, the accounts of wages to be presented to seamen and the regulations relating to both. We have had long discussions on this issue at all stages of the Bill in this House, as they have had in another place. We have sought all along to try to lead the Government from the nineteenth century, which is where these archaic arrangements come from, and to lead them to adopt a more seamanlike, a more sensible and a more up-to-date solution of what is admittedly a difficult problem. We have said over and over again that what we are proposing is not something that will apply in the general case but something that will apply only in the exceptional circumstances (and "exceptional" is a word I have used over and over again) when it is, in the master's opinion, more important that his navigation should be precise than his accounts. In those circumstances, we think that the way things should be is quite clear. However, despite these prolonged and varied attempts of every kind—because we have offered the Government one solution after another of this problem—we have not succeeded, and now, at this stage, I think there is nothing further to be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 3 and 4.]
Clause 8, page 6, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
"(2) The account shall be delivered not later than the time at which the balance of wages is payable to the seaman."
Clause 9, page 6, leave out line 43.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:—
Because a seaman should not have to wait seven days before receiving an account of the wages due to him.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 6.]
Clause 9, page 6, line 43, at end insert:
"(f) varying the amounts referred to in subsection (2) of section 7 of this Act."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because the Amendment is consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in page 4, line 39, to which the Commons have disagreed and they have made an Amendment to the words restored to the Bill.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 8.]
Clause 15, page 9, line 29, at end insert:
"( ) A seaman employed in a ship registered in the United Kingdom shall not be entitled to wages for any period during which he—

(a) unlawfully refuses or neglects to work when required; or

(b) is absent without leave; or

(c) is incapable of performing his duties by reason of an illness or injury which is caused by his wilful act or default."

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because the Amendment is unnecessary.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed. Your Lordships will have read the debate in another place, and will have noted that there is now considerable agreement that a statutory provision on these lines is unnecessary. When this Amendment was before your Lordships' Committee I stressed that the Government were not arguing against the substance of the Amendment. I agree that in general a seaman should not expect to receive wages if he unlawfully refuses or neglects to work, or is
1208
absent without leave, and so on. Whether or not a seaman who acted in the manner envisaged here would be entitled to his wages for the period concerned would depend upon the terms of his contract of employment. He would certainly be in breach of contract, and even if the contract were silent on the point a court might well hold that he was not entitled to his wages for the period in which he unlawfully refused to work, or for which he was unlawfully absent. There is no need to have any provision to this effect in the Bill: it is unnecessary. However, if there were really felt to be a need to have written terms to this effect inserted in the contract, or to circumscribe or spell out matters of detail, then these, I submit, are contractual matters for negotiation and agreement, and there is no overriding reason of public policy why we should seek to spell them out here.
I appreciate that the Pearson Report recommended the inclusion of these contractual terms—which was the main reason why the noble Lord, Lord Sand-ford, moved the Amendment in Committee—but the Report did make the point that they could
"become a standard clause in articles of agreement".
In this Bill we look forward to the future, to the day when more and more matters will be dealt with by agreement, and to company agreements superseding statutory crew agreements. It would in the Government's view be a retrograde step to write back into the Bill contractual provisions such as these modified re-enactments of the substance of Sections 159 and 160 of the 1894 Act, especially when it is unnecessary to do so.
It was pointed out in another place by the Opposition that there is no certainty that the Board of Trade will approve crew agreements containing such provisions, and I should like here to repeat the assurance given in another place by my right honourable friend, the Minister of State for the Board of Trade, that the Board of Trade would approve a reasonable provision of this character. For these reasons, I ask your Lordships to accept my Motion. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for that explanation, and particularly for his assurance, which goes quite some way to meet our point. I think the House will be left judging for itself the real reason why another place considers this Amendment unnecessary. Perhaps I might just remind the House that in fact, weighing all the considerations which the noble Lord has just put forward—and a good deal more than that in the six, seven or eight years during which this Bill has been under preparation—the Government came firmly to the conclusion that the Amendment which is now being disagreed to should in fact form part of the Bill. They put it in their own Bill; they supported it at Second Reading; they supported it at Committee stage, and I do not think many people will forget what happened at the Report stage. But, having said that by way of recollection, I would not seek to go any further on this particular Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 10.]
Clause 26, page 16, line 29, at end insert—
"Provided that—
(i) the liability of those persons shall be conditional upon the person so employed or his legal personal representatives affording to those persons every facility to prosecute in his name any claim in respect of such expenses and allowing them reasonable discretion in the conduct of any proceedings or the settlement of any claim in respect of such expenses and to the extent of such conditional liability, surrendering to them all rights in respect of such claim;
(ii) nothing contained in this section shall prejudice any right of recovery of such expenses from a person other than a person so employed."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because the Amendment would be ineffective.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed. Your Lordships will recall that the principle behind this Amendment has been very fully discussed in this House and in another place. I think it is true to say that no one would deny that it is desirable that a seaman should co-operate with his employer in
1210
the employer seeking reimbursement from third parties for the seamens' medical expenses which the employer has paid under Clause 26. The difficulty is that this Amendment would be quite ineffective to achieve that end. If it is felt that there should be some provision compelling the seaman's co-operation—and I hope that compulsion will not be necessary—the right remedy would be for an appropriate provision to be inserted in the contract of employment.
I have already explained in detail on Report stage the reasons why such a provision as this would be ineffective in a Statute, and little more than propaganda, and I will not weary your Lordships by repeating them now. As your Lordships will appreciate, we cannot have an ineffective and useless provision in a Bill, especially when other effective remedies are available. I would therefore ask your Lordships to accept my Motion.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I agree that it would be possible, and I hope will be possible, to deal with these matters in the agreement or the contract. Nevertheless, I regret that it was not possible to obtain a greater degree of symmetry in the Bill between the employer and the employee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 12.]
Clause 62, page 30, line 33, leave out from "Kingdom "to end of line 34 and insert—"
other than by reason that he has—

(i) been arrested or imprisoned for misconduct; or

(ii) absented himself from the ship without leave at the time appointed for sailing; or

( ) a person so employed is taken to such a country on being shipwrecked; or"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because the duty of employers to make provisions for seamen left behind should not be affected by the matters mentioned in the Amendment.
The Commons proposed the following Consequential Amendment to the Bill:—
[No. 14.]
Clause 93, page 44, line 32, after "1967" insert "the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Act 1970."
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed. This is a matter of who should make provision for maintaining a seaman who has been left behind abroad. The Amendment would relieve the shipowner of liability in cases where the reason was due to the seaman's misconduct in the manner indicated in the Amendment. I think that it is important to bear in mind that Clause 62 imposes a statutory duty to maintain and repatriate. That is one thing. The quite different matter as to the employer's recovering his expenses, in certain circumstances, for so doing is not dealt with by the clause. That is a matter of civil liability under the contract of employment.
The question whether the employer can recover his expenses in the case of a seaman who misconducts himself is a question of the seaman's civil liability to his employer governed by the terms of the contract of employment. If, in the circumstances envisaged, the employer might well have a remedy for breach of contract against the seaman, the damages for which might include expenses such as those for his maintenance and repatriation, that is entirely a matter to be determined under the terms of the contract. I am advised that there is nothing in the clause which would prevent the recovery of such expenses where there were grounds for a civil action for recovery under the contract.
We discussed this Amendment in Committee and it was argued that foreign Governments do not place a similar liability on their shipowners. I understand the desire to place no undue burden on our shipowners in relation to their foreign competitors. However, this is a matter of principle. In our view, on principle these expenses should be a matter for the industry and not for the general taxpayer. The Government see no reason for departing from this principle on the ground that it would impose a financial burden on shipowners. In any case, the additional expense involved will not be large. For these reasons I hope that your Lordships will accept my Motion.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the amount may
1212
not be large. We had some discussion on that; and at the end of the day it was agreed that nobody could say what the amount would be. The noble Lord said that he had no intention of departing from a principle. The fact of the matter is that this particular clause, in this particular Bill, establishes a new principle, one that is not adopted by or adhered to by any other maritime nation in the world—certainly none of any size. By not insisting on our Amendment we are therefore, in effect, putting our own merchant fleet which is such a good export earner (as I reminded the House on Second Reading, it earns us £250 million net a year in invisible exports) at a disadvantage compared to all our major maritime competitors. We are doing this, so far as I can see (though if the noble Lord can correct me on this that will be so much better) without any steps having been taken to persuade the other maritime nations to move into line on the new principle that we are establishing unilaterally.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, for the Record, the principle is that the employer should be responsible for maintenance and repatriation. That is the principle. With great respect, I think that the noble Lord is somewhat exaggerating, in terms of expense, the effect of this Amendment. Without the Amendment there might arise a case where the employer, having paid the cost of maintenance or repatriation for a man, when seeking to reimburse himself from third parties might not receive full co-operation because it was not in the contract of employment. I leave your Lordships to consider the total burden of expense likely to arise in these circumstances. I think it would be small indeed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Consequential Amendment No. 14. This Amendment is solely a minor consequential Amendment to Clause 93.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Consequential Amendment.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is quite clear and understandable. Before the Bill leaves

1213
us, I should like, since in defence of our Amendments to which the other place have disagreed I have been rather critical of the Government, to take the opportunity of congratulating the Government on their firmness, during the passing of the Bill, in upholding, against pressure from their own Left Wing, the need for discipline afloat. I would also congratulate them on providing in this Bill a legal basis for negotiating industrial relations in the merchant shipping fleet. This is something that we on this side have advocated over all sectors of industry for a long time. Here, at any rate, "in place of strife" and in place of interference by the Government we have a firm and modern framework of law in which further negotiations can go on. Despite the few blemishes that remain in the Bill, we have this framework; and I think that we can safely rely on the Board of Trade, as they now set about preparing no fewer than 35 different sets of regulations, and the National Maritime Board to build up a fine structure of industrial relations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FINANCE BILL
3.50 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords I know that many of your Lordships are anxious to leave the House at the earliest possible moment. My intervention on this occasion is going to be very brief. especially as I gather that neither the Government nor the official Opposition are going to participate at this stage. Yet I feel that: at this moment of time the House should not dissolve for what may be quite a long period—and certainly with a General Election—without some slight consideration of the economic situation of this country. I hasten to say to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that I expect no reply to the few remarks I am going to make, but I would remind your Lordships of what Mr. Enoch Powell said in another place on April 20 and recommend that you consider his analysis of our economic situation.
1214
He pointed out that three successive Budgets have resulted in the net repayment of debts of over £2,000 million—that is, the last three Budgets. This vast surplus for the repayment of debt is not only, according to Mr. Powell (and I agree with him) over-insurance, but also it has reached a point, as Mr. Powell pointed out, where, instead of the gears biting, the wheels merely slip. We are thus confronted, as a result of this gigantic taxation and debt repayment, with the extraordinary phenomenon, almost unknown in history, of an inflationary recession; and that goes for almost the whole of the Free World. As Mr. Powell said, this is a paradox which creates a challenge to monetary thinking and the budgetary policy of both sides of the House, and in every other country in the Free World.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in fact, accepted for the moment the views of Professor Milton Friedman, of Chicago, hook, line and sinker. For him, money supply is the only regulator of the national economy, and domestic credit expansion must be regulated accordingly in order to achieve his supreme objective of a favourable national balance of payments, to which, I think, we have been paying excessive attention. Because, supposing the United States and ourselves did achieve very favourable balances of payments in the near future, it could only be done in the absence of an increase in international reserves, at the expense of deterioration in the balance of payments of other countries in the Free World. My Lords, the present Finance Bill might well have been written by Professor Friedman himself, in Chicago; except that I do not think that he would have gone so far.
On the other hand, as a Cross-Bencher I must be quite fair and unbiased. Although I cannot agree with the present Budget proposals I must also add that when, on television the other day, Mr. Iain Macleod proposed decreases in taxation amounting to between £800 million and £1,000 million a year, he said nothing at all about what to put in the place of the taxes, or of this money, or where to find it, or how to achieve the economies. That is really the economics of Cloud-cuckoo-land. We cannot decrease present taxation by £1,000 million a year, either by achieving a comparable reduction in

1215
expenditure or by imposing additional taxation, except in new forms, such as an added value tax, of which I am not very much in favour.
My Lords, all I want to say this evening is that there is only one cure for the inflation from which we are suffering at the present time: it is economic growth and increased productivity—and I am sure that I shall carry noble Lords on both sides of the House with me when I say that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should have given most to encouraging investment in industry in this country, and least to encouraging consumption. In fact, he did the reverse; and, as a result, in the first quarter of this year the gross national product of this country has fallen at an annual rate of 3 per cent., while prices have risen at an annual rate of 6 per cent. My Lords, that is simply no good. As Mr. Anthony Barber, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, said the other day:
"One thing above all else lies at the heart of our troubles; and that is the failure to achieve a rate of growth comparable to that in almost every other advanced country in the world."
That is what has been going on during the last few years, except during the last year—with the exception of the United States where economic growth has ground to a standstill.
Meanwhile, we are back in square one; we are all back at square one. I find myself, as I so often do these days in respect of economic affairs, in agreement with Mr. Enoch Powell when he says that he is not prepared to sacrifice himself on the altar of an unknown god; at least, not until the paradox of inflation side by side with non-inflationary budgeting has run a considerably longer course, and we can see what are the causes of it, and why it has happened.
I am myself, my Lords, a Keynes man. I was brought up under his shadow. I believe that he was the greatest economist we have produced in this century, and perhaps one of the greatest economists of all time. He was essentially an empiricist. He believed that with imagination and intelligence most economic problems could be solved. He said himself, again and again, that the economic problem was a tragic muddle which could be sorted
1216
out. His basic theory was that the size of total demand, whether tending towards inflation or recession, depended mainly on the propensity to consume and the propensity to invest; not on the size of the money supply, which was effective only in so far as it had any effect on these two propensities. The two main themes of his life's work were the conquest of unemployment and a more liquid international monetary system; in his own words:
"The transition from economic anarchy to a rágime which deliberately aims at controlling and directing economic forces in the interests of social justice and social stability."
With this object in view, in 1933 he proposed the issue of international gold notes; in 1941 the establishment of a Clearing Union and in 1945 the creation of "Bancor" to support the Bretton Woods Agreement. In 1946 he put his faith in the International Monetary Fund as a means of expanding the international liquidity of the whole world. In fact, the reverse happened; international liquidity has fallen to about one-third of what it was at the time of the Bretton Woods Agreement—hence eleven currency devaluations.
The primary objective of the international monetary authorities of the Free World at the moment seems to be no longer economic expansion, full employment and increased productivity, but the transformation of national deficits into national surpluses at all, and almost any, cost; and that is no way to run the economy of the Free World. A few months ago I foresaw the present recession—I have not always been wrong—and I suggested to your Lordships that it might be a good idea to raise the price of gold. I thought that that was the easiest, the swiftest and the best way of increasing international liquidity, and I still think so. My proposal was turned down, as I anticipated it would be, with contumely by all sides—there were about two exceptions.
I now turn to another proposal. It is not the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, with whom I profoundly disagree, that we face another devaluation. It is that we should, in international conference, aim at a wider margin than exists between exchange rates under the Bretton Woods Agreement so that there

1217
should be more flexibility. In 1925 we went back to the gold standard at the pre-war parity of exchange. Keynes wrote that the whole object was to link rigidly the City and Wall Street; and he added that a ripple in the United States could become an Atlantic roller by the time it reached this side of the Atlantic Ocean. That is, roughly, what has been happening in the last 48 hours.
At the moment, my Lords, we have astronomical interest rates for which we have to go back to the Middle Ages to find a parallel; and I believe they are the primary cause of the rise in the cost of living, because the cost of money is the basic factor in cost itself. We cannot go on paying 7 and 8 per cent. for money without a steadily increasing inflation and a rise in prices, which in turn gives rise to increased demands for wages. This is a completely vicious circle. All we are now doing in fact by these astronomical interest rates, which exist now in almost every country in the Western world and certainly in the Free World, is to put glue into the machine.
I believe (and these are my last words) that our great mistake is to have forsaken Keynes and to have adopted Friedman, because Friedman is doctrinaire whereas Keynes was an empiricist and a very much abler man. The whole present economic set-up of the Free World would have horrified Keynes. Those who are against liquidity (and he was very much in favour of it, both domestically and internationally) and who favour tight international money rule, even over the banks, are in total command to-day. For my part, I believe that the basic peril confronting the Free World is not overproduction; it is under-production. Expansion is the prescription that I would offer for a world which is starving, not only for food in many parts but for capital goods almost everywhere; and an abundance of liquidity to sustain and finance it on an international scale. Otherwise, my fear is that the Communists may increasingly prevail. As I say, it is under-production that is the great danger.
Increased wage demands, if not matched by increased productivity and cheaper money, will of course result in a wage-cost inflation and rising prices. The workers will have to realise that, and I only hope that they will not have to learn
1218
it the hard way. There is no doubt about it. But rising prices are better than continuous deflation culminating in recession and an immense reduction of output all over the Free World. That is what is going on at the present time. As I say, I have not always been wrong in the past. I opposed our return to the gold standard at the pre-war parity of exchange in 1925; I opposed Snowden's ghastly Budget in 1931, rightly described by Keynes as "replete with folly and injustice"; and I opposed our "Stop-Go" tactics in the 'sixties. Therefore my simple plea to-day is for economic expansion. If the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, thinks that I expect him to give a comprehensive reply to the observations that I have just made, let me hasten to say that I expect no such thing.
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I wish to detain your Lordships for only a moment or two in referring to Clause 4 of the Bill, which extends the tobacco excise duty to substitutes for tobacco. Why is the clause in the Bill? For a number of years the medical profession have been telling us that there is sufficient evidence that smoking cigarettes encourages a number of diseases, the worst of them being cancer. This evidence is really beyond refutation, and the Government themselves, I think quite rightly, are spending considerable sums of money on warning the public of the possible dangers of over smoking. As a result of the medical campaign, a number of companies in this country set about research into the development of substitutes for tobacco—and here I must declare my interest because I am a director of one of those companies. Because two or three of them are known to be very near finding a substitute, along come the Treasury officials to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he must not lose any revenue. So before an "innocent" cigarette has been put on the market the Government extend the enormous tobacco excise duty to tobacco substitutes.
This is not only wrong in itself—it is wrong to prefer taxes to human life—but it is thoroughly unfair on those people who are near to the point of producing an acceptable "innocent" cigarette. Let us consider the difficulty of marketing such a product, against all the entrenched forces of the great tobacco

1219
companies, who are of course determined to see that a tobacco substitute does not attract the public. I listened to my noble friend Lord Boothby saying that if we got our economics right we could get our general situation right; but I have to disagree with him. I believe that what is wrong is that we have not got our feeling for people right. If we did, then I think that many of our economic difficulties would be soluble; and they are not going to be soluble by the old economists' tricks, however clever they may be. I regret very much—and I believe that any Member of your Lordships' House who, like myself, has had a member of his family die from lung cancer will agree—that this clause should be in any British Finance Bill.
4.16 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I was not expecting that there would be a debate on this Bill to-day, but in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has said, I should like to add just a few words in regard to the problems of economic expansion.
First of all, it is interesting to note that during the period from 1960 to 1970 the growth target set by O.E.C.D. has been more than fulfilled. That was that all the countries of O.E.C.D., stretching across Europe from Sweden in one direction, across North America, and as far as Japan in the other, should increase their total real growth of national product by 50 per cent. The actual figure reached was nearer 60 per cent., which means that the capacity of the Free World to create wealth has been increased in the last ten years by an amount corresponding to something like the United States of America as it was in 1960. That is an amazing achievement, and nobody can say that we have not got economic growth.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, that does not apply to this country.
LORD HANKEY: I am coming to precisely that point, I warmly agree with the noble Lord, and I am going to rub the point home. During the next 10 years, from 1970 to 1980, the Ministers of O.E.C.D., who met last week, have agreed (although your Lordships will hardly have seen it in the Press) to adopt
1220
a new growth target of no less than 65 per cent., which means at compound rates of interest a growth rate of 5·3 per cent. per year.
Some countries have a very high rate. Japan is in a "recession" when it achieves only 7 per cent. a year, and is in "some danger of inflation" if it exceeds about 13 per cent. By the turn of the century Japan will be one of the super-Powers, economically speaking. Some other Powers have only attained a much lower rate, and I am sorry to say that that goes for the United Kingdom, where we are achieving an average of only 2 or 3 per cent. The effect of this is that whereas the rest of the world has been expanding at a rate of which we in this country are hardly conscious (unless we travel a great deal), this country is rather rapidly falling behind. I am sorry to say that if you take the O.E.C.D. statistics of income per head, the United Kingdom has fallen in the last ten years from, I think, sixth or seventh to no less than thirteenth. That is in terms of income per head.
Those figures are rather difficult to compare with one another. Outwardly it appears that France and Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Luxembourg and Switzerland, and some others in Europe, are all ahead of the United Kingdom in income per head. If one comes to working out the real standard of living which people enjoy, I think it is harder to compare them. But there is no doubt that if the figures are compared from year to year the United Kingdom is going down slowly. I think that one day we may have to answer a very awkward question from some of our children. When our children, or grandchildren, say, "Dad, why was it the United Kingdom became poor in your time?", I do not quite know what we are going to answer. As my noble friend Lord Boothby has said, we must have a greater regard to increasing production in the United Kingdom and, above all, to increasing productivity.
There is some reason to think, quite frankly, that economic expansion is very difficult to separate from a tendency to inflation. When one decides to build a factory one raises a tremendous amount of money; proceeds to spend millions on land, railway lines, roads, cement flooring, buildings and machines, on

1221
training people and building houses for them, buying buses for them to go around in, buying raw materials; and finally the people are trained and the first lot of products are usually not much good. At the end of the process one has spent probably several million pounds before there is anything in the form of products on the market to show for it. That, I believe, necessarily means that beneath expansion there is an inflationary tendency. In an economy which is expanding, therefore, I believe we always have to look out for a certain danger of inflation. If we look at the steady decline of the real value of pretty nearly all currencies since the great periods of economic expansion started, it seems difficult to combat this theory. But certain it is that unless productivity advances with wages, inflation is absolutely inevitable.
The Government have been extremely brave, in my opinion, in trying to make an incomes policy work. I said some years ago that it was excellent economics but it might be bad politics, because in this country our population have got into a state of absolute despair at the way in which their wages have been held back and prices have fairly continuously risen. Prices in this country have not risen as fast as prices in some other countries, but the fact remains that the growth of our people's standard of living has fallen behind the growth of the standard of living of other countries; and the rise of our prices, which is a very serious factor at the present time, has diminished our competitivity in international markets.
I am not one of those who believe that we are in great danger owing to the shortage of international liquidity. I believe that the techniques developed by central banks for exchanging deposits on a huge scale to counterbalance short-term movements, the expansion of I.M.F. quotas and the introduction of S.D.R.s, and various other techniques, which I will not go into, have created a somewhat new situation. It is true, as my noble friend Lord Boothby said, that the reserves in the hands of this country have not increased at a rate corresponding to trade; and that, I believe, is dangerous. I think there is another factor also: that the time taken for the swings of international trade to produce corrective factors is longer than it used to be, because there are so
1222
many social policies which prevent, and indeed have to prevent, many natural corrective factors from operating. Therefore there is some shortage of actual reserves, first-line reserves, in the hands of national banks, when one compares them with the enormous increase in international trade.
However, there is another factor to which I particularly want to draw attention. There is an enormous increase in the amount of money which is lying about waiting to be used, as economic expansion proceeds, and is liable to swing about the world at rather short notice. This amount of money is so absolutely colossal that if it all moved at once I do not suppose any system of international exchange control or exchange regulation, or indeed international exchanges, could stand up to the strain. Fortunately that does not happen; but I feel that the world economy is rather like a truck going along a road, full of liquid. It is rather a "ropey" old truck and swings from side to side, and the liquid in it swings more and more and is liable to overbalance the truck. What do we do in order to protect the truck and the driver? We do not take the liquid away—we must have liquidity. What I think we do is to put a baffle-plate down the truck so that the water can move but it cannot all move at once. That corresponds to the controls on capital movement which we have been obliged to introduce.
What worries me about the present situation is that the United Kingdom is falling steadily behind and, as my noble friend Lord Boothby said, every time the Government introduce further taxes on consumption, everybody—it is almost a universal conspiracy of our people—finds some way round it by asking for extra wages, and so the ability to consume goes on upwards. I do not know how this is going to be checked, but I believe that the economists and everybody else are going to have to think again.
I agree with Lord Boothby that the rate of interest has reached a level where it is discouraging further economic expansion. But we cannot reduce the rate of interest in one country without the danger of producing precisely the kind of capital flows which I was mentioning just now. The duty of the Economic Policy Committee of O.E.C.D., of which I used to

1223
be Chairman, is to see that these changes of interest rates and other internal measures are kept more or less in line, so that the lorry of the world economy, as it proceeds along this bumpy road, is not swung right off the road at any one time.
I do not believe there is any great danger of a recession at the present time, because everybody knows, particularly from Keynes, of whom I am at least an equal admirer with my noble friend Lord Boothby, how a situation of that kind can be controlled. But it certainly is very difficult to reach a satisfactory control in one country without taking account of the developments in another country. The changes in the situation produced by the growth targets, and the tremendous economic growth, give a dynamic factor to the situation which is going to require very close study. My Lords, I believe that O.E.C.D. is a great help in this matter and that if we in the United Kingdom can only get our own situation straight, we shall greatly benefit by it.
4.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I nearly always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, when he speaks in the House. I must apologise to him because I was not in the Chamber when he spoke this afternoon, but I think I know what he was saying, from the speech made by the noble Lord. Lord Hankey, who has just sat down. The point I was hoping to make was this. It is easy to talk about growth, but it is very difficult to compare like with like. Growth in Iceland, or growth in Japan, is a different matter from growth in Great Britain. We started a long way ahead of other people—in fact. ahead of any other nation in the world that I can think of. It can be said that there has been growth in Brazil; and that would be true. But it costs £1.500 to join the local beach club. This is inflationary growth. The point I should like to make is that we in this country have already grown, and there is little room here for much in the way of a quick increase in the standard of living. It will increase, although more slowly. This point has not been made sufficiently strongly.
The other point that occurs to me is that nowadays our currency is probably one of the few in the world which is
1224
not grossly overvalued—and I mean grossly overvalued. Apart from certain currencies, such as the German mark and the Swiss franc, the pound sterling is now on a basis of real strength; and to my mind this is probably of more importance, from the point of view of the standard of living, than any rise or fall in the annual percentage rate of growth.
4.31 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in the normal way I should seize with both hands the invitation extended to me by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and not reply to this debate. But it so happens that we are still awaiting the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and the choice before us is either listening to me for a few minutes or adjourning the House. So in the time available perhaps I might endeavour to make one or two references to what has been said.
May I first of all say to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that I understand very well indeed why he made the point on Clause 4; and he made his point, if I may say so, very convincingly. As he himself will admit, there is nothing that we can do about this now. The debate on the merits of this is over. All I would do is to repeat the undertaking which was given by my honourable friend the Minister of State, in another place when he said:
"I can give this undertaking … that there is nothing in the clause which, when the time comes, will be an impediment to the successful marketing of such cigarettes"—
he was referring to cigarettes with a synthetic tobacco—
"if they can be produced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons. 27/5/70, col. 1833.]
I hope that assurance will at any rate be of some help to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, apparently has two admirers in this House—my noble friend Lord Addison and myself. I, too, always listen with great interest to what he says on financial affairs. I have listened to him now over many years and, as he says, there have been times when he has been right. There have also been times when he has been wrong. The noble Lord and I exchanged some words last October about gold, and he made some prophecies. Well, the final

1225
day has not yet arrived, but it has been interesting to me to notice what has happened to the price of gold since that discussion. From 44 dollars an ounce, it came down to 40 dollars at the time of our debate. It then fell to 35 dollars, and even though it is now a little higher—I believe it is 36 dollars—nevertheless I still feel that what I said was right and that what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said on that occasion was inaccurate.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, it will go up again!
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we will see. I must also say how much happier I was when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, move from the authority of Mr. Powell and Mr. Barber to that of the late Maynard Keynes. I am bound to say that I was very worried when the noble Lord quoted, at such length and with such approval, Mr. Powell on economic affairs. I really feel that the noble Lord should not allow the stock markets to make him quite so pessimistic.
That leads me to the next thing that I ought to say to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. While I recognise his qualifications for giving us a warning, I think he will probably agree with me on my first point, that we are in much better shape to meet any difficulties now than we were five years ago, or even two years ago—very much better shape.
The second point is that we ought not to over-exaggerate the difficulties which we see around us. It is true that output has recently fallen in the United States of America, but elsewhere—in Europe and Japan—growth is continuing at a healthy rate, and there are several economies that are running very near to capacity levels. Here in this country, taking account of probable external developments, we have forecast a growth of output of 3½ per cent. between the first half of this year and the first half of 1971. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Boothby, that everyone wants growth. Of course we have had growth in the past, but we have always had a balance-of-payments problem as well, and it is a fact that the past year is the first time that we have had growth and no balance-of-payments difficulties. I do not think we should underestimate the achievement that stands to our credit there.
1226
The Organisation for European Cooperation and Development, as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has reminded us, have recently published an assessment of the American economy. They recognise that there is a risk of a down-swing there, but they took the view that renewed growth is probable in the second half of this year and that it is reasonable to expect that the pick-up in economic activity anticipated for the second half of this year may continue into 1971. There has undoubtedly been a severe fall on Wall Street, but I do not think we should allow a fall in share prices to cloud our view that the long-term prospects of the United States economy are sound. Naturally, short-term uncertainties in the United States have had an unsettling effect on share prices in other financial centres, London not excluded, but I trust that settled conditions will soon return, and I am glad to note that although, as the saying is, one swallow does not make a summer, at a quarter to three this afternoon the Financial Times Share Index stood at 329·6, which is 8·6 points up from yesterday's close. So the situation is not altogether depressing.
The noble Lord referred to the possibility of concerted action between major financial centres. On that I would say two things. The first is that, although the situation is worrying, what I have said makes it clear that we do not believe this is the verge of any catastrophe. The second (and the noble Lord will agree with me about this) is that the machinery for international financial consultation is profoundly different from what it was on those earlier occasions when he gave a warning. Representatives of the countries mainly concerned are in constant regular contact, under the ægis of the International Monetary Fund, the O.E.C.D., the Group of Ten and the Bank for International Settlements, quite apart from the more informal but very frequent contacts that go on between Governments and central banks by exchange of visits and correspondence. This machinery provides not only the means of international vigilance but the basis on which vigilance can develop into concerted action if and when the need arises. And I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, worried as he is, that this consultation, this expertise that we now have, is a considerable insurance against the sort of risk to which he called our attention.

1227
I do not think it would be light of me to go further. I listened with great appreciation to what the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, said, and to what was said by my noble friend Lord Addison, who was very apposite. Taking everything into account, I see absolutely no reason why this House should not now give the Finance Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in order to give time for another place to let us have the Consolidated Fund Bill, I hope that it will be for the general convenience of the House if we now adjourn until five o'clock.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, so far as noble Lords on these Benches are concerned, that is perfectly agreeable, but I trust that it will be somewhere about five o'clock, and will not mean that noble Lords will have to sit about here until six o'clock or nearly seven o'clock.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the Bill does not reach us by that time, it will be my proposal that we then consider it at an agreed time before the announced Sitting of the House tomorrow. From signals I have received, I am assured that the Bill ought to be with us before five o'clock.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
5.3 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry that there is this further difficulty, but my information is that the Bill for which we are waiting is actually on its way, and I think it may be more to the convenience of the House if we remain sitting for a short time, when I trust the Bill will be with us. Otherwise, it will be necessary to adjourn again during pleasure.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there appear to be certain difficulties in establishing communications with the other place. The business has actually been
1228
transacted there, but the physical porterage of the document from that Chamber to this seems to be confronting the authorities in another place with certain difficulties, which I must say—and I take the opportunity of putting on the Record—are quite intolerable. It is the second time we have had this take place. It is nothing to do with the legislative side of the thing; it is the sheer machinery of it. They appear to be incapable of putting the document together, wrapping the tape round and sending it to this place. I think that ought to be on the Record, and I hope that maybe the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition would care to support me.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was going to ask the noble Lord, since we are busy wasting time, whose fault this is. It brings the House and the whole Parliamentary system into disrepute when this House sits waiting for something to happen when the other place has finished the Bill. I have just walked back from the other place—it took me 30 seconds. Whose fault is this? Perhaps the noble Lord the Chief Whip would give an assurance that, even though Parliament is going to be prorogued to-morrow, he might take up this and suggest that everybody in this House, regardless of where he sits, gets fed up with this.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for what he has said. I do agree with him. I did take it up on a previous occasion, and we received certain assurances that it would not happen again. Nevertheless, we now have the same situation and I see no alternative—I am now told that the Bill is on its way, but it seems to be rather a long way. I think that perhaps the dignity of the House would best be served—does the noble Lord wish to put another point?
LORD CARRINGTON: Who is responsible for this? Is it some office of the House of Commons which is responsible for seeing that the Bill is here? It is nothing to do with anybody in this House. I cannot conceive of another place allowing this to happen, and I do not see why we should.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I put a suggestion to the noble Lord that if this is going to happen we take over the

1229
administration from the portals of the House of Commons and make sure that we bring up the Bill as soon as they have finished with it? It seems to me that they are totally incompetent in this administrative problem.
LORD BESWICK: The Speaker has endorsed the Bill. The inability lies in getting it from there to here. I can see nothing of any dust arising, and I think the best we can do is again to adjourn during pleasure.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
5.20 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before I move the First Reading of this Bill I think it is appropriate that something should be said. I am sorry that procedures here have gone differently from those upon which we had agreed. It was hoped that the Clerk from the other place would be at the Bar of the House in order to hear the displeasure which is felt in this place at what can only be considered as the incompetence of another place. I know that there is this feeling and I think it is right that it should be expressed. In this day and age, when we are trying to modernise almost every institution in the country, one would have thought it would be possible to contrive a system of communications under which the Bill came over here rather more quickly than has been the occasion this evening. I now beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I just support what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said? I think the happenings of the last forty minutes have been absolutely disgraceful. There can be no reason why the House should be treated like this, and I very much hope that there will be some way in which whoever is responsible in another place
1230
is made aware of the feelings of this House. I think that this is the first time in the 25 years or so that I have sat in this House that I have ever seen your Lordships' House sitting here in session with nothing whatever to do, and waiting on the competence of another place to send up a Bill which they had passed forty minutes before. I hope that the feelings of this House, which are very strong, will be made known to those responsible.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to add my support to what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has just said. It seems to me absolutely absurd that we should be subjected to treatment of this sort. May I suggest that, rather than accept assurances from the other place, we should in future be told what arrangements are made, so that we can scrutinise them and make quite certain they are workable.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since I was not waiting here I have not yet quite reached the pitch of fury which a number of noble Lords have felt, but I have immediately sensed the great and intense irritation. It is the case that this is not the first time, in my experience, that there have been delays which were very much to the inconvenience of your Lordships, not to mention the anxiety that it is bound to cause on the Government Front Bench who are trying to satisfy the House, conscious that people are being kept here. Therefore I am naturally very sympathetic to everything that has been said. It has been suggested that we should buy a pair of roller skates which we should make available to somebody in another place so that he could proceed rather faster to your Lordships' House.
I think that the remarks that have been made by noble Lords opposite, and by my noble friend, Lord Beswick—whom I regard as normally a calm man, but who has reached a pitch of fury apparently equalled only by that of the noble Lords opposite—will not go unnoticed. I am quite certain that the Lord President, the Leader in another place, who in my experience has always been anxious to cooperate, will take note. Perhaps I should add that this is not the only misfortune. There were troubles over the Administration of Justice Bill because there was not

1231
a proper Marshalled List of Amendments made in another place. That had nothing to do with the officials here, who serve us so well. Although some confusion is inevitable, confusion has been added unto us through no fault of our own at all. I hope that that is satisfactory. Does the noble Lord want even stronger expressions?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord the Leader of the House rather left it that somebody might read what has been said. I want rather more than that; I want somebody to make sure that what we have said is made known to another place, not just left to the off-chance that they might read Hansard. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will make sure that they do know it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I did not intend to give that impression. I was trying to ensure the maximum publicity for what was said in your Lordships' House, and I do not doubt that this will be done. I take it that the wish of the House is that I, as Leader—at least "pro tem": I will not say how long the "pro tern" will be—should in fact represent in the right quarters the strong feelings of this House on what has happened.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think we might register this protest more effectively if we voted against this Bill and threw it out?
LORD SHACKLETON: I must point out that it would be an unusual thing to do on First Reading.
On Question, Bill read la.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether I can now get your Lordships to agree that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I apologise again for the inconvenience to which your Lordships were put, and I take this opportunity of wishing good fortune in our different ways in the days that lie ahead.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I just express my appreciation at having had the highly enjoyable, if sometimes worrying, experience of being Leader of your Lordships' House during the past two or three years. I would echo what my noble friend Lord Beswick has said. I should very much like to thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for the example of co-operation that we show here—sometimes under difficulties, and sometimes under difficulties inflicted by other people. Whatever may happen in the Election, at least we shall all be meeting on one side or other of the House in the near future.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to join both noble Lords who have spoken and to echo what the noble Lord said in his closing sentences. Whatever may happen, we shall all be here next time and I have no doubt will be saying much the same things as we have said in the last six years.
On Question, Bill passed.

TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
HOOKER ESTATES LIMITED (TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GOSPORT CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
HARWICH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.