Lords Sitting of 11 March 1971

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

AIR FARES ON SCHEDULED SERVICES
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the lack of cheaper fares available direct to the public unconditionally on the main routes served by scheduled airlines and whether they will recommend to IATA that the matter be considered.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Baroness's Question is "Yes", but the answer to the second part must, for various reasons, be "No". In particular, it is essential that air fares that are cheaper than normal public fares for tourist or economy class should have more stringent conditions attached to them, since otherwise nobody would pay the full normal fares.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, we never seem to get very far on this matter. Does the Minister recall that on February 18 he told the House (col. 802 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) that Governments were not without influence in these matters? May I ask him whether he is aware that B.O.A.C. is challenging the international air fare price-fixing cartel and, if this Government approve, proposes to cut fares on mid-Atlantic routes from April 1?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is true that Governments are not without influence, but they do not, as suggested in the noble Baroness's question, recommend directly to IATA, which is an
170
association of independent airlines. As I said yesterday, they advise British airlines before the negotiations. As to the B.O.A.C. Caribbean route, the "Early bird" offer is one which is conditional; you need a four months booking ahead of time in order to qualify for it. However, this is something which we hope will become much more widely available, and discussions about this are going on.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, will the Minister please tell the House why the Government will not recommend similar action on fares to Europe as B.O.A.C. is taking on fares to the Caribbean? Why are the Government not prepared to put up this proposal through B.E.A. in IATA for consideration on passenger fares to Europe?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have not said that B.E.A. would not be prepared to put it up. I have only said that this is a matter which has to be very carefully studied, and that, at the end of the day, it is a matter for agreement between the airlines at IATA.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I agree with the noble Baroness's Question? But does he not think that we should come nearer home and that the Government should still subsidise the commuter services, because of the heavy increase in fares which is going to take place in the next few months?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I did not quite catch the whole of that question.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I support the noble Baroness in her Question? Does he not think that the Government ought still to continue the subsidy on the commuter services and save the people the high fares in the months ahead?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think it has been the policy of all Governments, so far as the airlines are concerned—and we are talking of international air services here—that the airlines should be viable and should pay their way.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that this works out as a restrictive practice in

171
favour of the travel agents, because it makes it uneconomic for anybody to travel abroad without going by package tour through a travel agent?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there are obvious advantages in taking what are called the "I.T.X. fares" as part of an inclusive tour deal through travel agents, but this merely illustrates the fact that you must have additional conditions attached before you can offer a cheaper fare. These I.T.X. fares are subject to much more stringent conditions than the ordinary normal public fares.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that the whole of the IATA fare structure has now become so complex and complicated that many travel agents are not in a position to give their clients proper advice? There are something like fifty different fares across the Atlantic.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am painfully aware of how complicated this subject is.

PETERLEE SCIENCE CENTRE PROJECT
3.12 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any progress has been made in the science centre project in the New Town of Peterlee in County Durham.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the Peter-lee Development Corporation are continuing to promote the New Town's potential as a base for research and development. The Government's recent decision, announced on February 18 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to accord Special Development Area status at Peterlee will increase the attractions of the town for new industry.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that making it a
172
Special Development Area will not improve the economic position of the town of Peterlee? Also, is he aware that if the project for a science centre is not implemented it may embarrass the economic future of the town, particularly in view of the figure of 10 per cent. unemployed in the area? Is he further aware that there is a rumour current in the area that if the project for a science centre is not implemented the I.B.M. computer firm are contemplating closing down a large part of their works, which would seriously affect the area?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I would not agree that the designation of Peterlee as a Special Development Area will not contribute considerably to the town's future progress and advance. It was one of the contentions of the Development Corporation that the lack of this status was hindering its growth in relation to the surrounding area. I am not aware of the rumour which the noble Lord has mentioned.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that the concept which was initiated some time ago to create a science centre in the new town of Peterlee raised high expectations which were far in excess of anything that could be expected as a result of declaring it a development area? Will he consult with his right honourable friend who is responsible for matters of this sort, to see whether the project can be proceeded with?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, certainly, my Lords. Everybody has high hopes of the future of Peterlee as a science-based centre, and everybody is anxious that this should go forward. But there are limits to what we can do in one particular place, as against all the others which are demanding special attention.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does not the noble Lord the Minister agree that the future development of this centre depends very much upon Government help at the present time, particularly Government help following up the initiative, which I mentioned on a previous occasion, of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who proposed some years ago that a Government research station should be placed in the North-East? Will the noble Lord assure this

173
House that the Government are thinking along those lines?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, certainly, my Lords.

RHODESIAN SANCTIONS: THE BEIRA PATROL
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the withdrawal of the Beira patrol is under consideration.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the position remains as I stated in my written reply to my noble friend Lord Barnby on January 12. The Government have already announced their intention of exploring the possibilities of a just settlement of the Rhodesian problem; meanwhile sanctions, including the patrol, will be continued.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether before there is any withdrawal of the Beira patrol the United Nations will be consulted, inasmuch as the United Kingdom Government received the endorsement of the United Nations. At the same time, can the noble Lord say whether in the opinion of the Government—leaving aside the questions whether or not the Rhodesian Government is illegal, or whether or not it has committed a misdemeanour—the Beira patrol now achieves a useful purpose?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first question, much depends upon whether or not we can have negotiations with the Rhodesian Government, and I think we had better leave it there for the time being. With regard to his second question, the fact remains that no oil has got through to Beira.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many ships have been stopped and searched by the Beira patrol during the last 12 months?
LORD CARRINGTON: Not without a great deal of notice, my Lords.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, is it the view of the Government that the Beira patrol is absolutely preventing the Rhodesians from getting all the oil that they want?
LORD CARRINGTON: No, my Lords, I do not think it is the view of the Government that the Beira patrol has been successful in preventing oil from reaching Rhodesia.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I therefore ask the noble Lord whether it is true that the Beira patrol is not effective in preventing oil from being sent to Rhodesia? If that is so, is it not about time that the Government came quite clean about it and told us the, facts of the situation? Finally, if the Beira patrol is of no value, why not discontinue it, after consultation with the United Nations?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as I said earlier, I think that this depends on whether or not we are successful in getting negotiations going with the Rhodesian Government. I think the sanctions and the Beira patrol are tied up with that, and it would be unwise to take it any further at the moment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that this is not a question of getting talks started; it is a question of getting a satisfactory conclusion to those talks?
LORD CARRINGTON: No, my Lords, I do not think that that is right. At the moment, the position is that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has had some exploratory talks about whether there is a basis for negotiations to proceed.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lards, may I ask my noble friend whether there are any proposals to extend the scope of air surveillance, or the strength of the R.A.F. detachment at Majunga, which is part of the Beira patrol, in view of the extension of Soviet naval power into the Indian Ocean?
LORD CARRINGTON: I think that is a different question, my Lords.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, does the noble Lord understand that this patrol is regarded by the Portuguese Government—our ally and friend of several

175
centuries—as the equivalent of an affront to their national sovereignty, and that in the event of certain action it might well be regarded as piracy on the high seas? Further, could my noble friend say whether units of the Royal Navy which are employed on this service are currently having the courtesy of the ports of the South African Republic for certain requirements?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's first question, the Beira patrol is conducted in order to comply with our obligation under paragraph 5 of Security Council Resolution 221 of 1966. With regard to his second question, Royal Naval ships on the Beira patrol are refuelled and re-provisioned from afloat support.
LORD BARNBY: May I ask my noble friend whether I understood him to say that these ships are being provisioned in South African ports?
LORD CARRINGTON: From afloat support, my Lords.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS: REGISTRATION OF OBJECTIONS
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the postal strike, they will extend the period as laid down during which objections may be made to Draft Orders or Statutory Instruments, in order that the rights of the public, as provided by Parliament, shall not be frustrated.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the Government are aware that difficulties have been caused by the postal strike, and they have already announced that where action can be taken administratively to defer the operation of time limits, or to extend them, this is being done. I should like to add the advice that anyone who has been prevented by the postal strike from registering objections or appeals should now do so without further delay.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that most satisfactory reply.

NORTHERN IRELAND
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Carrington will be making a Statement on Northern Ireland at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.
THE EASTER RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that, subject to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House should rise for the Easter Recess on Thursday, April 8 and reassemble on Tuesday, April 20.

NATIONAL SAVINGS BANK BILL [H.L.]
3.23 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHANI OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I rise to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged. I think this is an operation of the new Standing Order, and therefore, before the House decides to discharge the Order of Recommitment, if it pleases the House to agree with my Motion, I should inform your Lordships that this is a Consolidation Bill with Law Commission Amendments, and as such falls within the fourth category of Bills referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. In so far as the Bill is not pure consolidation but gives effect to recommendations by the Law Commissions, it can be discussed by the House and in Committee of the Whole House, but in this case the Joint Committee are of the opinion that the recommendations of the Law Commissions are for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law, and they approve the recommendations without amendment. The Joint Committee further state in their Report that in their opinion there is no point to which the attention of Parliament ought to be drawn.
This Bill has been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I understand that no further Amendments have been set down to the Bill and that

177
no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee on recommitment. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43(2), that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I have read the proceedings before the Joint Consolidation Committee, and we would respectfully agree that the Order of Recommitment should be discharged for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS BILL
3.25 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment.
Clause 8 [Shipping casualties]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("the salvor") and insert ("any salvor in possession of the ship").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a straightforward drafting Amendment. In looking at this clause again, we realised that it might not be altogether clear that the words "the salvor" as used in subsection (2)(c) referred only to the salvor in possession, as in the preceding line, and not to any other salvor. The Amendment is designed to put this simple matter beyond doubt. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 4, leave out from ("section") to end of line 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be convenient for the House if we were to deal with Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, and Amendment No. 6 which amends Schedule 2, together. They are all concerned with the same basic point. Noble Lords will recall that at the Report stage, in response to Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I undertook to reconsider the penalty provisions of this new clause and the Schedule relating to obstruction of a person carrying out a direction or taking action against a ship on behalf of the Secretary of State or of a person attempting to give or to serve a direction. The noble Lord had represented that, as obstruction could take a form which might frustrate the whole purpose of the Secretary of State in giving a direction or taking action, it was not satisfactory that these offences should attract a maximum penalty of no more than £100 fine in a magistrates' court, and he suggested that offences involving obstruction should either be subject to a maximum fine on summary conviction of £50,000 or that the lower maximum might be retained with the alternative of imprisonment.
We have carefully considered both those alternatives, and, as I think the Amendments make plain, we have opted for the higher maximum fine without the alternative of imprisonment. We have, however, also made the offence s indictable with no limit to the fine which may be imposed in the higher court. I should add that the Government have decided to take this course despite the fact that there are several weighty arguments against it. The general objections to providing lay magistrates with exceptionally high fining powers have been rehearsed a number of times in the context of this Bill in both Houses of Parliament, and I will not go over all of them again, but they remain valid, and the more so since in most cases obstruction, if it occurred, would be a relatively minor offence. Secondly—and this is a matter which greatly concerns a number of organisations representing seafarers: seamen, officers and masters—obstruction is normally thought of as an offence committed by an individual, for whom a

179
£50,000 fine would be totally inappropriate. The provisions relating to obstruction will be read in the light of the clause as a whole. For example, in view of subsection (6) I am sure that there could be no question of proceedings being brought successfully against an individual who obstructed action because it was likely to endanger human life.
There is in fact little concern among our seafarers that British magistrates would impose unreasonable penalties on individuals, but we are among the first nations to legislate in this particular field, and we must not overlook the possible effect of our actions on other countries. There is a very real fear among seafarers that if our example were copied elsewhere they might be exposed to the risk of unnecessarily harsh treatment in other courts. We must not ignore that view, however improbable it may seem to your Lordships that such a situation could arise. On the other hand, we have to recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, pointed out, the clause as drafted opened up the possibility that unscrupulous persons might take advantage of the low penalties to be obstructive in a way which would completely frustrate the intentions of the Secretary of State, without incurring any great penalty, and that such obstruction might be of considerable benefit to others concerned.
We accept that this is a potential danger, and it is for this reason that we have decided that all the offences which might nullify the intentions behind the clause and give rise to large-scale oil pollution should carry the same penalties. We are confident that we can rely on the good sense of magistrates to distinguish between cases in which large penalties might be appropriate, in that a deliberate attempt had been made to circumvent the whole effect of the clause, and ones which are committed by individuals from purely personal and perhaps misguided motives. While recognising that misgivings may be felt about the effect of similar legislation in other countries, we must legislate here primarily to meet our own needs, and act on the presumption that if this legislation is copied abroad it will be administered in a sensible way
180
and not be used as a means of persecuting our shipping. Moreover, I think that we all recognise that the standards of our own merchant navy are such that it is most unlikely that British seafarers would bring themselves within the criminal provisions of this or equivalent legislation, here or abroad. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, we are glad that the Government have taken a step to close this loophole which was pointed out at an earlier stage. I am convinced that a step was necessary, but because of the very real difficulties which the noble Lord has outlined so fully and of the dangers inherent in the solution that the Government have adopted I was a litle surprised that he did not tell us why the Government did not adopt the alternative solution; namely, of making imprisonment a possible punishment for this offence. I am sure that the House would be patient if he were to speak again, with leave, to tell us why the Government chose the £50,000 fine instead of a low fine and imprisonment. I do not criticise the choice, but I should like to know the reason for it.
LORD SANDFORD: Briefly, my Lords, because, as your Lordships so far have agreed and the other place clearly thought, the appropriate penalty for the full offence is quite clearly a heavy fine.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 15, leave out from ("be") to end of line 16 and insert ("guilty of an offence under this section").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50,000,

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine".—(Lord Sandford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Shipping Casualties]:
3.34 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 9, line 28, at end insert:
"Right to recover in respect of unreasonable loss or damage
.—(1) If any action duly taken by a person in pursuance of a direction given to him under the principal section, or any action taken under subsection (4) or (5) of the principal section—

(a) was not reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce oil pollution, or risk of oil pollution, or

(b) was such that the good it did or was likely to do was disproportionately less than the expense incurred or damage suffered as a result of the action,

a person incurring expense or suffering damage as a result of, or by himself taking, the action shall be entitled to recover compensation from the Secretary of State.
(2) In considering whether sub-paragraph (1) above applies, account shall be taken of—

(a) the extent and risk of oil pollution if the action had not been taken,

(b) the likelihood of the action being effective, and

(c) the extent of the damage which has been caused by the action,

(3) Any reference in this paragraph to the taking of any action includes a reference to a compliance with a direction not to take some specified action.
(4) The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court, of the Court of Session and of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland shall include jurisdiction to hear and determine any claim arising under this paragraph."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to a different point. Your Lordships will recall that in our debate at the Report stage, on paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 the discussion culminated in a decision to delete the paragraph, on the understanding that the broad principle behind it would have to be restored. We acquiesced in this procedure because we ourselves were unhappy about some aspects of the drafting, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was unhappy about others, and wished us to remove the risk of damage to a ship as a result of a direction or action by the Secretary of State from among the factors which might entitle a person to compensation. This new paragraph omits the words to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, took exception; it retains the concept that the good achieved by the action taken must be disproportionately less than the damage suffered, which the noble Lord welcomed on Report, but it now makes
182
provision for expense incurred by a person seeking to recover compensation, as well as damage suffered by him—all this to be set against the good achieved by the action.
It is also provided that the criteria set out in the new sub-paragraph (2) are to be applied to the case specified in paragraph 1(1)(a)—that is to say, when the need for the action is questioned—as well as to the case specified in sub-paragraph (1)(b). In sub-paragraph (2)(a) the words:
"the extent and risk of oil pollution"
have been substituted for the words:
"the extent and probability of imminent damage".
This is a drafting Amendment to make the language consistent with that used elsewhere, in Clause 8. Finally, in subparagraph (4) the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland has been included among the courts having jurisdiction to deal with claims under this paragraph. This paragraph is an essential part of the Bill. I think that it is now an improved version of that which we took out on Report I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think that this is a very reasonable compromise by the Government and I welcome it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8, leave out from ("be") to end of line and insert ("guilty of an offence under the principal section").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I apologise for the large number of Amendments that have been introduced to this Bill from the Committee stage onwards, but I think I have already made the reason for this clear. There now may be some final points which noble Lords would like to make before the Bill actually passes.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, as my noble friend said, this Bill has been rather

183
a chapter of accidents. Usually, the insurance department of the Ministry of Trade are very good about prior consultations with all interests before legislation, but this time they were not so good as usual. The result is that we have had massive changes to the Bill, on Committee stage and Report stage, and now on Third Reading. We really ought to have recommitted the Bill and had a second Committee stage. Some of your Lordships may think that I have an interest to declare. Actually I have not. I am on the board of a small insurance company, but we do not deal with marine insurance. However, it leaves one with some sympathy for the species of underwriter in general.
The action under this Bill is necessary and inevitable, but it throws a very heavy onus on the marine undertakers and I think it only fair that this should be recognised. The powers of the Secretary of State to give directions are necessary for the public good, but it does not mean to say that any direction is necessarily a wise one—for instance, it may be panicky and misconceived. The responsibility placed on the Secretary of State is a very heavy one. He may be tempted to order that a damaged vessel, which presented a remote but possible danger to our shores, should be towed out into the Atlantic and sunk, in the hope that that would be the last that he would ever hear about it. The danger could be so remote as to attract compensation under the provisions in the new paragraph 1 to Schedule 2 which my noble friend has just moved. But it would be very difficult to prove, because "dead ships tell no tales", and the underwriters will have to quantify the risk of action by nervous Secretaries of State. I do not think that will be an easy task for their actuaries.
There is one other point that arises, regarding the question of salvage. Deep sea salvage, often conducted by Dutch firms, is done on the basis of great skill and daring for great rewards, on the basis of no salvage, no pay. I do not think that these people are going to take kindly to the idea of their reward being snatched away from under their noses by a direction from the Secretary of State. It means, I think, that the form of deep sea salvage contract will have to be changed
184
radically, unless it is possible for the salvage people to insure against a direction being received. That sounds a very simple solution, but in practice there are many complications, which I will not go into now.
My noble friend has done his best, by his new Amendment, to make a Bill which I agree is a public necessity a little less draconian. I do not see anything else that he could have done, and still maintained the basic necessary powers; and one must thank him for doing it. Whatever happens, this Bill is going to provide a lot of fat fees for the Admiralty Bar and more headaches for the underwriters, and one can only hope that the powers of the Bill will never be invoked.
3.43 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if I may speak for a moment, I should like to associate myself with Lord Hawke's concluding prayer. Naturally we all must hope that the powers in the Bill will never be invoked, because we must all hope that never again will there be a tanker accident; or, if there is, that the owners and salvors will know what to do without being told. If they do not know what to do, we must hope that they will obey the slightest hint from the Secretary of State given in the form of advice.
My Lords, I should like to say that I, too, have been worried about the lateness of the changes which we have carried into the Bill and also the wideness of those changes. I believe this to be acceptable, because we must not forget that this matter arose out of an accident, the collision between the "Pacific Glory" and the "Allegro" to the East of the Isle of Wight. We have probably forgotten that accident, because since it occurred there have been so many more. There has been a terrible and tragic toll; a pile-up of ships in the Channel. None of the accidents has led to pollution on any great scale, but most have led to loss of life, and I believe it was justified to legislate quickly, by this Bill, on the basis of experience. I believe that there will be much more legislation on this matter. Possibly legislation will be passed every year in Parliament from now on, until we achieve a control which covers the high seas; which covers traffic regulation in the high seas; and which covers the giving of orders to masters of ships

185
on the high seas, if we are to stop the loss of life and reduce the pollution of our coasts by oil.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said that this means trouble for the insurance market, and of course it does. No one can doubt that the effect of this Bill, when it works through, will be to increase premiums. If I may hark back again to a point which I made at several junctures during the passage of this Bill, I would say that it is only the choice of people in the oil industry that results in the use of these gigantic oil tankers which pose gigantic risks; which may have to be the subject of very urgent orders and upon which, therefore, enormous insurance premiums must be paid. If the oil people chose to use smaller tankers, the risk of pollution and collision would be less; the impetus afforded to a Secretary of State to give draconian orders would be less, and, I submit, the premiums would be less per ton of oil carried. It may be, my Lords, that that will be the way in which things will go.
3.45 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, there is one point, of a rather different character, to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. I am strongly in favour of the Bill, but the point I wish to raise is one of great importance to the mercantile marine, particularly to the masters of ships. If I seem to press the Minister for assurances which go beyond anything he is prepared to give, I have two reasons. Throughout two world wars I was intimately connected with the mercantile marine in circumstances of the greatest difficulty and peril to everyone who put to sea. That is one reason, my Lords. The other reason is that in the successful application of the aims of this measure we must, I submit, have with us the good will and cooperation of the shipping industry and of the great oil companies at every possible point. We ought not, therefore, to leave the masters of ships in any position of difficulty if that can be avoided.
During the Committee stage an argument arose about the possibility of providing defences for the masters of ships who did not comply fully with directions received from the Minister. The Chamber of Shipping were uneasy on two points
186
in particular. One of them has been met by Amendments made to the Bill by which, in addition to what was the sole defence of due diligence, provision has been made for action to be taken in the interests of preserving human life.
There is another point, my Lords. The Minister, operating on advice necessarily given far away from the actual occurrence, may have ordered something to be done which looked perfectly right anti reasonable to him at the time. But circumstances may change, and at sea they can change very suddenly. There might be some sudden change of weather, or in the position of the lie of the ship itself which would make it hazardous to comply with a direction given from Whitehall, however reasonable that direction might appear.
What is the master of the ship to do? He is in charge; he is responsible for the lives of his crew and the safety of the ship. Yet he is confronted with the choice of either defying the Minister's direction or doing something contrary to the terms of that direction, which might involve him in the very heavy penalties rightly imposed under the provisions of the Bill. The Chamber of Shipping, on whose behalf I speak, are still uneasy on that point. They recognise the extent to which the Government have already gone to listen to their point of view and, where possible, to meet it.
This is not a remote contingency. It is something which might very well happen and, it seems to me, it is something with which it is very difficult to deal. I confess that I cannot see any way in which it could be dealt with under the provisions in the Bill. I do not see how it is possible to devise some formula which, in effect, would say that the master of the ship could ignore a Minister's direction and supersede it by his own judgment; though his own judgment may well be the better one, and may be taken on the spot and with the actual conditions raging round him.
I think it would be a good way to meet the difficulty if the Minister could give to the House some assurance that normally a qualified officer will be near enough to the actual ship to confer with the master and listen to what he has to say, to represent what he says to headquarters, and to get the direction revoked, suspended or perhaps modified and a new

187
direction issued. I recognise that that will not be possible in all circumstances. The disaster may occur in some remote place where the physical difficulties are too great to be overcome. But I think that in the great majority of cases, and certainly anywhere near our coast, seaside resorts or bird sanctuaries where the risks are greatest, it would be practicable to arrange departmentally for some competent officer of the Minister and those actually in charge of the ship to get in touch with one another and perhaps get the direction which would otherwise be binding on the master modified to meet particular circumstances.
I hope that, for the reasons I have explained, I shall not be thought by the Minister to be pressing the point unduly. So far as the Chamber of Shipping are concerned, as I have said, they realise that the Government have gone as far as they can reasonably be expected to go in the Bill itself, but they would feel much happier if they could have some assurance from the Minister that he is not merely sympathetic to their point of view—which I know he will be—but that he can see some practical means of meeting their apprehensions.
3.53 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, so far from being unduly pressed, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and to other noble Lords who have spoken, for an opportunity to give a number of reassurances at this last stage of this important Bill because of the hurried way in which it has been introduced into your Lordships' House. This was not an accident: it was a calculated decision to take account of the lessons learned in the "Pacific Glory" incident. I can assure my noble friend Lord Hawke that the views of insurers on Clause 8 have been carefully considered. I am nevertheless satisfied that it is necessary and right for the Government to be armed with these new powers, and to take them now. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, reminded us, it is not only the "Pacific Glory" incident itself, but the other accidents in the Channel since then which have reinforced this view.
I appreciate that the existence of these powers will add a further risk to those already present in a salvage operation, and salvors may seek to cover themselves
188
against this risk. I do not believe, however, that they need be entirely deterred from undertaking salvage operations. There are several points in this connection that I should like to emphasise. We already have a right to intervene in a casualty which threatens damage to our coasts by oil pollution, and this right has been clarified in the Convention signed at Brussels in 1969. We should have liked that Convention to extend also to territorial waters, but that idea did not find favour internationally. The "Pacific Glory" episode demonstrated the need to have the powers, if not the need to use them. In legislating for territorial waters we sought to provide safeguards equivalent to those in the Convention, and it will be much to the interests of shipowners and salvors if other countries can be induced to follow this lead in their legislation.
Secondly, I must emphasise again that the Government intend to proceed, again as in the "Pacific Glory" case, so far as possible by co-operation without invoking any statutory powers, and they will in any case act in the closest consultation with other parties that are involved, including any salvors, as well as the owners of ships and cargoes. It is true that the clause does not spell out an obligatory procedure for compensation comparable to that in Article 3 of the Convention. We did not think that this would be appropriate to the Bill, especially as the Convention itself provides for action without prior consultation or notification in cases of extreme urgency. Any obligation to consult in every case would go beyond the Convention. Nevertheless, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that we shall regard it as just as necessary to consult the other parties involved in an incident within territorial waters as we should in a case covered by the Convention. Indeed, it would be unwise not to do so, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, reminded us, we must take into account the knowledge of the experts on the spot.
Finally, the salvor who like any other person suffers damage or incurs expense may be entitled to recover compensation under the provisions that we have made in Schedule 2.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, for his remarks and for giving me an opportunity to add the particular

189
kind of reassurances for which he asked. Proposals were made, as the noble Lord said, by the industry for including an additional defence under subsection (8) of Clause 8 so that it might be possible without fear of penalty to refrain from complying with the direction if circumstances had so changed after its issue that to comply would be positively harmful. One must obviously sympathise with the purpose of this proposal, but there are, as the noble Lord surmised, serious objections to including such a defence.
First of all, there is the general point that it is essential that a direction made by the Secretary of State in circumstances of this sort should be effective and should be complied with without argument or delay; and we are relying principally on the compensation provisions in Schedule 2 as the safeguards for the interests of the shipowner. Secondly, the concept of a change of circumstances—that is easy enough to visualise—is not readily susceptible to legal drafting, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, fully recognised; and the defence suggested would have gone much wider—to cover cases, for example, in which compliance with the direction would endanger the ship. This would be inconsistent with the main object of this clause, which is to cater for situations in which the interest of the shipowner or salvor in saving the ship does not coincide with the national interest in preventing pollution. A defence on these lines might prevent effective action in just such cases.
Although, for these reasons, I cannot agree to put in a further defence for this purpose, that is not to say that the Government would insist on compliance with the direction in the situation envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, in which it had become abundantly clear to all concerned that compliance would do more harm than good, not only to the ship but also in the problem of preventing pollution. I have emphasised previously that in dealing with a casualty which threatens oil pollution the Government will rely first of all on co-operation with all the other parties involved, and especially with the shipowner and the salvor. We hope that in most cases this will be successful, and that the powers provided by this clause will not prove necessary.
There will have to be the closest possible consultation throughout, and I
190
think that this provides the main answer to Lord Hurcomb's point. The direction is not going to be issued by a remote Secretary of State in Whitehall, without direct contact, leaving the recipient to make what he can of it under threat of prosecution. For example, throughout the "Pacific Glory" incident we, with an operations room in Whitehall, were in constant touch with D.T.I. officials and with the Navy, and, through the Navy, with the salvor and the owners on the spot. The Secretary of State will, we envisage, in almost every circumstance have officials on the spot or in touch with the situation. If there is a change of circumstances which renders a direction inappropriate, the right course will be to bring this to the attention of the Secretary of State's representative so that the direction may be suitably amended or withdrawn altogether. A direction is not irrevocable, and the power to make one carries with it the power to alter or to withdraw it. This is the right way to deal with the difficulty, rather than to introduce a defence which would seriously weaken the effect of the clause in other circumstances. I hope that that deals with the two points that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, raised.
I should now like briefly to add a further word before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. In the form in which it came here from another place the Bill received a warm welcome from your Lordships. The main and original purpose of the Bill was to enable the United Kingdom to accept and to bring into force for British ships as soon as possible important Amendments to the 1954 International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil. This is directed at wilful pollution of the sea during the normal course of ships' operations. We believe that the powers provided by the Bill will enable us to go a long way towards ending this nuisance. No change of substance has been made to the provisions of the Bill dealing with these matters during the passage through your Lordships' House. However, an important addition has been made, to which the "Pacific Glory" case first of all drew our attention. This extended the scope of the Bill to provide new powers to intervene in certain circumstances in the event of a casualty at sea which threatens large-scale oil pollution.

191
I apologised for the very short notice at which this important provision was introduced, and I am appreciative of the understanding way in which the House has received and dealt with it.
Although the principle was generally accepted, the detailed provisions have called for careful consultation outside and consideration inside your Lordships' House. It was necessary to seek a balance between adequate powers for the Government to protect our coasts from massive oil pollution, and the substantial and legitimate interests of ship owners and salvors. At the same time, we have to bear in mind that we are one of the first countries to legislate on this particular matter, and our lead may well be—and almost certainly will be—followed by others. This was an additional reason for basing our legislation as closely as we could on the 1969 Convention dealing with the high seas which contains important safeguards. The constructive discussions which we have had at each stage have been most valuable in clarifying and refining the drafting of this new measure, and I invite your Lordships to give your approval to a Bill which has been improved and extended in this new, important and significant way.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

NORTHERN IRELAND: MURDER OF SOLDIERS
4.4 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made in another place about Northern Ireland. It is as follows:
"In Belfast last night three soldiers of the Royal Highland Fusiliers were murdered in cold blood. They were off duty, unarmed and in civilian clothes. The crime was clearly deliberate and premeditated.
"I am sure the entire House will wish to register its condemnation of this appalling crime and deep sympathy with the relatives of the men who died at the hands of these evil forces.
"As I informed the House on February 15, the situation in Northern
192
Ireland has recently changed to a more vicious form. The organised groups of armed terrorists have been stepping up their campaign of murder and violence. The security forces have been intensifying their campaign, not without success, I am sure the House would wish me to confirm once again that the Government will give all possible support to the security forces in carrying out their dangerous and distasteful duties and I am equally convinced that the overwhelming majority of ordinary people in Northern Ireland, to whatever community they may belong, equally join in condemning these brutal acts and in wishing to see the criminals brought to justice. Every effort will be made to see this is done. In addition, the General Officer Commanding is considering urgently whether any additional precautions are necessary in respect of movements of soldiers when off duty.
"I think it is important at the same time to remember that the aim of the terrorists is to destroy peace and order throughout the province. To this end, they are clearly trying to provoke the security forces into reprisals which would appear to be aimed not against the criminals but against large sections of the population. In this way they clearly would like to inflame relations between the Army and the public and to stoke up once again the sectarian violence on the streets which in recent months has shown hopeful signs of diminishing. The Government do not intend that they should succeed in this objective. The battle now joined against the terrorists will be fought with the utmost vigour and determination. It is a battle against a small minority of armed and ruthless men whose strength lies not so much in their numbers as in their wickedness."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for that Statement. I wonder what else one can say in regard to this terrible story. I am sure that the entire House agrees with what is said in the Statement and would wish to send the utmost sympathy to the families of these very young men. I wonder whether the noble Lord can give us any further information. I imagine that it is not yet known which particular

193
group or section were responsible for this awful crime, but I am sure that the overwhelming majority of ordinary people in Northern Ireland—everybody except a minute handful of people, both in the North and in the South—regardless of community would condemn this crime.
I noted what the noble Lord said about the intention of the terrorists to inflame relations between the Army and the public. I am sure that the message that will go out from your Lordships' House is of admiration at the enormous and remarkable restraint of the troops. I believe that this is entirely characteristic of the British Army of to-day. In a way, the situation in Northern Ireland is becoming like the Aden situation. Here again I believe that there would be very few armies in the world who would not now be rampaging trying to carry out reprisals. I hope that the noble Lord will convey the strong feeling of sympathy and admiration that we feel on the restraint of the British Army.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has said, and I will convey his remarks to those concerned. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Anybody who has been to Northern Ireland, and has seen how the Army is behaving, must be filled with admiration. The noble Lord said—and this is perfectly true—that it is only a tiny fraction of the people of Northern Ireland who would not be revolted by what was done last night. But one has to remember that there are large sections of the population who appear to be terrorised by these people. It is very important that the security forces should get information about these murderous thugs, about what they are proposing to do and what they are doing, as soon as possible; for if the security forces are not given the information they need it is going to take much longer than it otherwise would do to eradicate this terrorism. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will give information when they know and see these murderous people on the streets, carrying weapons, or hiding in houses next door to them.
With regard to the other question, about who is responsible for this crime, it is too early to say. The Royal Ulster Constabulary are making a very thorough investigation into this affair, and I hope it
194
will be possible to arrest those responsible and deal with them accordingly.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches would like fully to support what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has just said, and indeed what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. We want to join in the condemnation of this appallingly callous act and to associate ourselves with the clear sympathy which must be expressed to the relatives. I have no intention of pressing the Government on a matter of this kind. I am sure that they must rely on the judgment and advice of their professional advisers. I must say that when I was over there some time ago I was full of admiration, both for the troops and for the people who were advising the Government.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, while deploring this terrible outrage, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government have considered a suggestion that I ventured to make some weeks ago, in the form of a Question, in view of the fact that Mr. Jack Lynch and members of his Cabinet have condemned these outrages—and similar outrages have occurred before? Has he, and have the authorities in the South, been consulted with a view to obtaining useful information about the activities of the Provisionals, so as to enable our authorities, our troops and those responsible in Northern Ireland to deal with the situation more effectively?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has been in touch with the Government of Eire. I have no doubt that as a result of what happened last night he will ensure that there are more discussions on this subject. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that this situation is going to be ended only when we have enough intelligence about who the people are, where they are coming from and how they are going from one place to the other. The suggestion the noble Lord makes is a very valuable one, which we have already followed up.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether he knows who was responsible for permitting the highly

195
provocative Orangemen's march last week, when troops, who had been stood down only at 6 a.m. that day after three or four nights of dealing with non-stop rioting, had to be called out to protect that march that afternoon? And may that not have been one of the sparks that set off these frightful murders?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know who was responsible for it, without Notice, and I do not know whether that was one of the causes of this matter. I should rather doubt it. But I very much hope that those in Northern Ireland who are responsible for calling these marches will realise the strain they put on the Army and the dangers that are run by provocation of this kind.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he has any information as to what religious denomination the three young murdered soldiers belonged?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have not. Two of them came from Glasgow and one from Ayr. I am afraid I do not know of what religious denomination they were, and I doubt whether that had much to do with it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that we are all feeling a sense of outrage at this horrible incident? In view of his own statement that the great majority of people in both Northern and Southern Ireland are opposed to this violence, may I ask him whether it is not possible to take some steps to mobilise that opinion in the Churches, in the trade union movement and among the groups of women who are standing between the sides—to mobilise it in such a way that it would have an influence upon events?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord has said. As he will know, the Home Secretary, when he was over in Northern Ireland last week, saw the leaders of the Churches. Of course we wish to mobilise public opinion against this activity. That is the obvious and right thing to do. It has not been very easy in the past. I think there is a
196
growing sign of revulsion among the people of Northern Ireland against outrages of this kind. I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw the television News last week which showed the lady in Londonderry in whose house a soldier died. One had only to see what happened then to realise how all decent people feel about these events. I hope that if any good can come out of this senseless business of last night, at least it will mobilise the people of Ulster into realising what is happening and will ensure that they give information to the security forces when they have it about what is happening.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while wishing to avoid any possibility of thoughts of discipline in this most painful situation, but remembering that the noble Lord has just explained to us these terrible acts of terrorism in the North of Ireland, which he subsequently said were carried out by "murderous thugs", may I ask this? Since in so many other quarters terrorism has been described as "freedom fighting", would it be too much to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition to assure us that there is no likelihood of any confusion as a result of so improper and wrong a description being used in this case?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think my noble friend is wrong in asking the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition any question. I thought we disposed of that matter for the time being last June. But I think it would be true to say that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and his Party have been four square with all three Parties in their attitude to what is happening in Northern Ireland. There is no conceivable Party issue in anything that is happening in Northern Ireland at the present time.

FIRE PRECAUTIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
HIGHWAYS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WELFARE FOOD (EXTENSION OF DEFINITION) ORDER 1971
4.16 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Welfare Food (Extension of Definition) Order 1971, which was laid before this House on February 3, be approved. This is a simple amending Order, subject to Affirmative Resolution by both Houses. It seeks to extend the definition of "welfare food" as defined in Section 4(2) of the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964. It has been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with Section 61(1) of the Heath Services and Public Health Act 1968.
The primary object of the new Order is simply to extend the existing definition of "welfare food" to enable Secretaries of State concerned with health in England, in Scotland and in Wales to supply a new vitamin preparation in liquid form for babies and very young children. This is a particularly vulnerable age group, and the need to maintain their medical and dental health at the highest level justifies the new provision. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, in a Written Answer on December 16 last, announced that it was proposed to replace concentrated orange juice as a source of vitamin C, and cod liver oil as a source of vitamins A and D, in the welfare foods scheme with a new liquid vitamin preparation for children containing all three vitamins A, D and C. This decision was taken following a Report by a Panel on Cariogenic Foods which was set up by the Chief Medical Officer's Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. The Panel concluded that the misuse of undiluted fruit syrups, including welfare orange juice, was conducive to rampant dental caries. A Panel on Child Nutrition set up by the Committee had previously recommended that a palatable alternative to cod liver oil as a source of vitamins A and D should be found. The Committee agreed that in order to remove the dental hazard presented by welfare orange juice and to overcome the unpalatability of cod liver oil to some children, both products should be with
198
drawn from the welfare food scheme and be replaced by a single preparation containing the three vitamins, A, D and C.
As a result, formulation trials were put in hand and a new preparation for children, to be administered in the form of liquid drops, was developed. The new preparation will provide adequate amounts of vitamins A, D and C to children so as to meet the recommendations of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy in a convenient, safe and palatable way. The existing definition of "welfare food" in the Emergency Laws Act is restrictive to the extent that it provides, inter alia, for vitamin tablets and not for vitamins combined in liquid form. The age group principally at risk here is the child between six months and two years. Administration of necessary vitamins in tablet or capsule form would present obvious hazards to the very young child who might well inhale the tablet or capsule and suffocate. For this reason, and on expert medical advice, the Secretary of State decided to introduce a new vitamin preparation in liquid form. In order to include the new preparation in a revised Welfare Food Order it is necessary to extend the definition in this way.
In announcing his decision to introduce the new preparation, my right honourable friend pointed out that it was the misuse of undiluted fruit syrups that gave rise to the main dental hazard. The Panel on Cariogenic Foods found evidence that some mothers were in the habit of using undiluted fruit concentrates in children's reservoir feeders and feeding bottles and on dummies, and concluded that this practice was conducive to rampant caries since the syrup remained in contact with the teeth for long periods of time. Following the report, the formulation of welfare orange juice was altered so that both the acidity and the sugar content were reduced, and the bottle label and official leaflet were amended to draw attention to the risk. However, it was not possible to remove the dental hazard entirely without making the orange juice unpalatable or changing its nature.
My Lords, it is important to emphasise that these risks do not arise with the normal consumption of diluted fruit juices nor with non-concentrated juices or whole fruits. It was the misuse of

199
welfare orange juice in the way I have described that concerned the Secretary of State, and has led to the introduction of the new vitamin preparation.
It is proposed to make the new preparation available from April 4 at all child health clinics and local health authority distribution centres. It will be available in a 10 millilitre bottle which will be sufficient for at least seven weeks' supply. Children in low income families will be entitled to two bottles every 13 weeks free of charge. The selling price will be 5p per bottle, and this price covers the cost to the Exchequer. As to the cost to beneficiaries, the new preparation which contains all three vitamins can save families more than 50p on a 13 weeks' supply as against the cost of both orange juice and cod liver oil. Thirteen weeks' supply of welfare orange juice and cod liver oil at full dosage costs 62½p; thirteen weeks' supply of the new drops will cost mothers 10p.
Orange juice is made available under the welfare food scheme not only for young children but also for expectant and nursing mothers. The new liquid preparation will not be suitable for the mothers since it will not contain other constituents which they need and currently receive in the vitamin A and D tablets supplied for their use alone. A new combined A, D and C tablet is accordingly being formulated, and the intention is to introduce it for mothers only by the end of the year when orange juice will be withdrawn from the welfare food scheme. Cod liver oil will be withdrawn from the scheme on April 30.
As I have explained to your Lordships, the Secretary of State's decision to introduce the new liquid vitamin preparation for these young children is entirely in accord with expert medical and dental opinion, and will constitute a more convenient and a safer vehicle for administering under the welfare foods scheme vitamins essential to their health and wellbeing. To achieve this, it is necessary to extend the definition of welfare foods in the Emergency Laws Act in the manner proposed in the draft Order now before the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Welfare Food (Extension of Definition) Order 1971, laid before the House on February 3, be approved.—(Lord Aberdare.)
4.26 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his usual clear and courteous explanation of the purpose of this Order which will extend the existing definition of welfare foods to include the new liquid preparation. We shall always, I am sure, welcome any steps that are designed to improve the standard and the balance of nutrition among the 4 million expectant mothers, infants and very young children up to the age of five who are the beneficiaries of the present range of welfare foods, which have done so much over the years to improve the standards of health and wellbeing of our children, and indeed of the nation as a whole.
Having listened to the statement I doubt whether the mothers of this country will weep if cod liver oil disappears. Quite apart from the difficulty of administering it to very young breast-fed infants, in my experience it stains clothing very heavily and therefore adds to the mountain of washing which young infants inevitably produce. I myself eventually had to resort to the procedure of giving the children their cod liver oil in the bath to avoid this particular hazard.
But I must express my great concern at that part of the statement which appeared to indicate that the supplies of orange juice concentrate, both for children and, eventually, for mothers, are to be withdrawn so precipitately from our welfare clinics. We know that these are popular welfare foods. Some 12·16 million bottles were used last year by expectant mothers and by infants and children at a time when the uptake of certain other welfare foods was declining. We know that according to the research carried out there were a small minority of mothers who were wrongly using orange juice by, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, told us, putting it on dummies and into feeding bottles and therefore creating hazards to the dental health of their children. But in my view that is not sufficient reason for withdrawing orange juice altogether, and I am deeply concerned at its total withdrawal by the end of the year because of the major effect that such withdrawal could have on the economy of, in particular, British

201
Honduras, our major Commonwealth supplier.
Yesterday afternoon we heard my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale refer to the heavy dependence of the economy of British Honduras on sugar. Citrus fruit and citrus concentrates, including the orange juice exported to this country, come second in the British Honduras export table, and I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the effect that this decision will have on the economy of British Honduras. I accept that we should always be concerned to develop better methods of providing for the nutrition of our expectant mothers and young children, and I accept that the new liquid form of vitamin concentrate, providing vitamins A, C and D, is a valuable advance, particularly in the case, as I said earlier, of certain young children. But I would have hoped that in the special circumstance of our Commonwealth interests, as well as in the interests of the health of our mothers and young children, the Government, while introducing the new concentrate, would have agreed at the same time to continue making supplies of orange juice available in our clinics, thereby providing a choice until the uptake of the new substance is known.
I am deeply concerned at what I understand to be the impact of this statement; namely, that as from the end of the year all supplies will be stopped. I must therefore ask the noble Lord what discussions have taken place with the British Honduras Government and what notice we have given to terminate the long-term citrus concentrate contracts that are in existence, and what we intend to do to offset the very severe effects which this action is bound to have on their economy.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, has covered many of the aspects of this question that I had intended to raise. I am concerned that the Government may not have appreciated fully the educational possibilities of getting mothers to use medicines properly. The cariogenic properties of a concentrated fruit juice are of course beyond dispute. At the same time, we know that in other materials that have been on offer to the public generally it has been possible so to educate people
202
that abuses are not practised I therefore hope that, more especially in the light of the effect on British Honduras—and in my time I have received delegations on this matter from that country—some effort will be made to offer at least a limited supply under proper control with adequate warning to the public. I think the public is getting a little restive about the continual replacement of natural vitamin-containing material by synthesised material. Pharmacological research is not so far advanced that we can say quite clearly that cod liver oil, for instance, can be replaced absolutely, dosage for dosage, by a synthesised material. We do know that natural medicines have effects on children which the synthesised product has not as yet proved itself equal to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to have had a warm welcome to the end of cod liver oil, even though the welcome to the end of concentrated orange juice has not been quite so warm. May I first of all deal with the question of our suppliers in British Honduras and Jamaica. They have over many years been urged by us to diversify and not rely entirely on this market. We gave them notice in October, 1970, that we should not be requiring any more orange juice concentrate after the end of this year. We have sent a representative to British Honduras and Jamaica, and I myself have had two conversations with the Minister for Trade and Industry from Jamaica and I have tried to be of assistance to him. We have also asked my right honourable friend at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to consider favourably any possible help that they might be able to give in phasing out this contract.
So far as the withdrawal of orange juice concentrate is concerned. I cannot really add anything very useful to what I said in my statement. The fact is that it has been misused. The Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy advised us strongly against continuing with it if we could find another way of getting the same vitamins taken by the children, and of course combining them with the vitamins that replace cod liver oil in a simple and also a much cheaper way. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, about possibly educating mothers into not misusing the

203
concentrated orange juice. This would have been, I suppose, an alternative, but I doubt whether it would have been very effective. It might have been very expensive without any certainty that it would be effective. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to this Motion.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, at the very end of my remarks I mentioned the question of phasing and allowing orange juice concentrate to be available for a period in the clinics at the same time as the new substance. I am very concerned that notice was given in October, 1970, leaving British Honduras just less than a year and a half, which is one or at most two crops to find alternative markets. Could the noble Lord tell us what quantities of orange juice we have been buying and what this is going to mean to British Honduras?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I also said that we had been urging producers to diversify for a very long time. October, 1970, was the date when we gave notice of termination of the contract. As I say, I have been in touch with the Jamaican Minister and we have tried to help him. However, I do not think he is as concerned as the noble Baroness is.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, particularly as the Minister has replied, but this is a very serious matter. Yesterday, we had a debate on the effect on the Commonwealth of our negotiations to go into the Common Market. Noble Lords speaking from the Benches opposite spoke in very clear terms of this country's responsibility to help developing countries. The decision that the Government have taken is one that was presented to a previous Administration, and we took a different view. I do not think that the decision the Government have taken to-day has anything to do with the effect on young women and children. I think it is a question of economy. The noble Lord himself made this point at the end of his remarks. The noble Lord suggests that some fourteen months' notice—that is, notice to the growers—is sufficient for these countries to diversify their economy. If the noble Lord has any knowledge of these territories, he will know that it
204
is, I will not say impossible, but nearly impossible for them to diversify. The noble Lord has, I think, struck a very severe blow to our friends in British Honduras and Jamaica, and I shall look at any further protestations from the Benches opposite about their attitude to the developing countries with a good deal more suspicion than I have done in the past.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to reply to the noble Lord on one point. This decision was made on medical grounds; not at all on the question of economy. We were advised by the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy, which is the Committee which advises the Secretary of State, that the misuse of this concentrated orange juice was affecting our children's teeth, and it was for that reason the decision was taken. We went to a very great deal of trouble to make the decision as easy as possible for Jamaica and British Honduras.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I would only point out that clearly this has been going on for nearly thirty years, during which time we have been pushing orange juice into children. It is a very tiny minority of people who have been using it wrongly. I think the least the Government could have done was to insulate British Honduras and Jamaica from the worst effects of this change by a careful phasing out of the orange juice supplied to mothers and babies.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CALF SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1971
4.38 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on February 16, be approved. The object of the Scheme is to provide for the continuation of calf subsidies after the present Scheme expires at the end of March this year. Provision is made for subsidies to be paid for a further three years and at the present rates of £11·25 for a steer and £9 for a heifer. Three years is the longest time allowed for a Scheme under the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Act 1952, but

205
Schemes can, of course, be amended within the three years.
This Scheme, like its predecessors, will encourage the production of good quality beef by enabling subsidy to be paid on suitable live calves or on carcases of sufficiently good quality to be eligible for the fatstock guarantee payment. In 1969–70 subsidy amounting to £27½ million was paid on almost 2,700,000 animals.
The terms of the Scheme are generally identical to those of the present Scheme. There are in fact only two differences. The first of these is that, following the Transfer of Functions (Wales) Order 1969, the Secretary of State for Wales shares with the Minister the making of the Scheme and its administration in Wales. The other change concerns Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Government have for some time followed a policy of encouraging the dehorning of cattle, and it is an offence in Northern Ireland to sell or export horned cattle, or to expose for sale or bring into a slaughterhouse cattle which bear signs of recent dehorning. These provisions already preclude the payment of half subsidy on carcases of horned animals, and in order to give further support to the dehorning policy the Scheme provides that calves in Northern Ireland with horns or unhealed wounds apparently resulting from their removal should not receive subsidy while still alive. They would still have an opportunity to qualify for subsidy as carcases provided that their horns had been properly removed before they were presented for slaughter. This provision, which has been fully accepted by the Ulster Farmers' Union and other livestock interests in Northern Ireland, is not expected to reduce the numbers of calves being kept on for beef production in Northern Ireland.
Calf subsidies have been paid for well over twenty years now and are accepted as a valuable method of assistance to our beef industry. The Scheme runs well and clearly fulfils its purpose of encouraging the retention of calves for beef. The numbers of these have now been increasing for some time and it is the Government's intention that this increase should be maintained. I commend this Scheme to your Lordships and hope that
206
it will meet with your approval. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1971, laid before the House on February 16, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
4.40 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Order, although it is only an extension of the previous Order. But we should like to point out that the cost of breeding calves has gone up during the last three years. Higher wages and higher costs of feedingstuffs have contributed to this. We are therefore rather disappointed that the subsidy has not gone up in proportion to the costs. The calf subsidy encourages the breeding of beef. This saves foreign exchange and reduces the amount of imported beef. It also improves soil fertility and soil conservation.
I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider two proposals to introduce suitable Orders and to carry them out. Proposal one is to make dehorning compulsory; proposal two is to get Treasury sanction and approval that all calves dehorned or polled when the calf is certified for subsidy receive an extra £1 per head as soon as possible. Farmers benefit greatly from dehorning. In my part of the world a dehorned beast makes approximately £5 a head more than a similar horned beast. Dehorned beasts graze better in the field and do better in the yards because there is less bullying. Why are we in this country behind Northern Ireland and the Republic, where dehorning is compulsory? I know that the Government answer will be that Irish cattle are mostly exported on the hoof, and that as a result of de-horning less damage is done in transit here. But there is, of course, considerable transport of cattle born in this country. Therefore the same argument applies to United Kingdom cattle as to Irish cattle. Surely we should move with the times and dehorn. The only exception might be with Highland cattle.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lard, Lord Nunburnholme, has said. We ought to come to the stage where we deal only in dehorned or naturally polled cattle.

207
I declare an interest in trying to breed dairy cattle with no horns, and I should have thought that we ought to get an extra subsidy for such efforts. The cruelty in dehorning, even with the pain-killing injections, is great. It wastes time. It costs money, and it sets the calves back. And to do it with more adult animals is cruel. For all these reasons the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, merits serious consideration.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, although I agree with my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme that there is here a case for asking for an increased subsidy, on this occasion I content myself with saying that I suppose we have to be grateful that the Government's passion for false economy and for putting up the price of food has not extended to this area of subsidy. I welcome the Scheme, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for his lucid explanation of it.
I would also take the opportunity, however, of saying that I hope that the noble Lord will see that the points that have been put about dehorning will be considered. I understand the point about the extra distances involved in the transport of Northern Irish cattle; but this is only a difference in degree and not in kind, so far as the hazards are concerned. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give an assurance that, even if this is not a suitable sort of Order in which to make a change, he will on some other occasion bring forward other legislation relating to this matter.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I can give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that everything that has been said on this occasion will be most carefully considered. I cannot definitely give an assurance (the noble Lord would not expect me to) that legislation will definitely be brought forward on this point. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, for his specific exclusion of Highland cattle, since I have rather a personal interest in these cattle, and I think it would be a great pity to see Highland cattle compulsorily without their horns even if there be a dehorning policy for all other breeds.
208
As your Lordships will have realised while you have been speaking, there are particular reasons as regards Northern Ireland for the dehorning legislation. As I say, everything that has been said on this point will be considered. But the passing of an Order such as this is probably not the occasion to introduce incentives for a new policy such as dehorning, or indeed to decide on definite future legislation on the subject. But I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

APPLE AND PEAR DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1971
4.47 p.m.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM rose to move, That the Draft Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order 1971, laid before the House on February 16, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order is presented for your Lordships' approval in accordance with the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, under which the prinicpal Order establishing the Council was made in December, 1966. The effect of the Amendment will be that any grower who should register with the Council but fails to do so will not escape liability to pay its annual charge, whereas at present this charge can be levied only on those growers who have carried out their obligation under the principal Order to register with the Council.
I can be fairly brief, as this is a simple change. It does no more than make growers, as defined, liable to pay the annual charge, whether they have registered or not. Noble Lords will wish to know how this change is regarded by those whom it affects. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, as is required of him under the Act of 1947 before he amends a Development Council Order, has consulted the Council and those organisations representative of substantial numbers of persons engaged in the industry and of persons employed in the industry. These representative organisations and the Council all support the proposed change without reservation.
They will have had in mind, as your Lordships will, the work carried out by

209
the Apple and Pear Development Council. The main task of the Apple and Pear Development Council is to promote and publicise home grown apples and pears. It also carries out research and other subsidiary but useful functions. As many noble Lords will themselves know, the Council has been getting its message across. The full measure of its success can only be gauged over a reasonable period, but where the Council has staged sales weeks, special demonstrations and the like in selected areas, market research has recorded striking increases in the volume of sales. The Council's posters and shop displays over the country, its bus side advertising in the Midlands, its television spots in the North—all these methods have been helping the industry's returns and helping the consumer to appreciate the worth of home-grown apples and pears.
This work by the Council costs money, but it is performed on what is still a modest budget. That makes it all the more important that the Council should not lose any of the revenue to which it is entitled. The evidence is that the great majority of growers fulfil their obligation under the main Order as it now stands to register with the Council and pay the annual charge. At the same time, the experience of four years' operation has shown that some growers who are required to register by the principal Order evade or delay doing so, and thereby evade or delay liability to pay the Council's annual charge. These defaulters do of course benefit from the work of the Council and the contributions of their fellow growers to the Council, and it is unacceptable that a selfish few should be able to avoid liability for their own contribution. I therefore commend this Order to your Lordships, and beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order 1971, laid before the House on February 16, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, again we are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining to us the purpose of the Order. It was always my experience that, no matter how constructive and meritorious a scheme was, the possibility of raising a levy without criticism, or without obstruction, was remote. I know that the legislation
210
here requires the Minister to consult with the organisations, and I was glad to hear that not only had he consulted them but that he had obtained their approval. I should be interested to know which organisations were consulted. I hope not only are they saying that they agree, but that they are going to give positive co-operation in implementing the scheme.
LORD DENHAM: My Loris, I am happy to be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that assurance. My right honourable friend consulted the Apple and Pear Development Council itself, which, of course, is most interested in this Order. They also consulted the National Farmers' Union; the Transport and General Workers' Union (Agritural Section), and the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. All of those bodies gave approval to the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RECOGNITION OF DIVCRCES AND LEGAL SEPARATIONS BILL [H.L.]
4.52 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lards, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
LORD BESWICK: May I ask just to fill in the time, for how long it is proposed that we should await the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack?
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I regret that this has happened, and I cannot give the noble Lord a direct answer. Perhaps I may move that the House adjourn during pleasure for five minutes, in which time I will arrange for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to be in his place.
House resumed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before the Motion is put to adjourn during pleasure—and in order, I might even say, to provide a little extra time—I would point out that this is a most unusual procedure. It seems to me that the organisation of business on behalf of the Government ought to be carried out in such a way that we do not have to hang around like this, and go into Committee and then go out of Committee again. It would be much better if the Government could arrange for the noble and learned Lord to be here at the time the business comes up.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I think that an apology is due to the noble Lord and to the House. I am quite certain that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was very busy on some other business and was not warned in time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I gather from what has just emerged from the noble Viscount that I have kept the House waiting. I hope he will accept my apology, and I hope I have not kept the House waiting long. I was, in fact, only notified that the last Order was coming to an end a moment ago, and I arrived with what despatch I could summon.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Recognition in Great Britain of divorces and judicial separations granted in the British Isles]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section")
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. I think I can honestly say that this is a purely technical Amendment. Perhaps I should
212
explain why it is necessary, but in no more than a few words. Clause 9, which enables the Parliament of Northern Ireland to enact corresponding legislation, comes into force at once. The remainder of the Bill comes into force on January 1, 1972. The phrase in the Bill as drafted, "the commencement of this Act", is therefore ambiguous. The intention is that it should mean the commencement of Clause 1 in this context, and this is made clear by the Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
4.58 p.m.
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Non-recognition in Great Britain of divorces obtained in British Isles otherwise than by decree.
".—(1) A divorce obtained in any part of the British Isles after the commencement of this section otherwise than by means of a decree granted under the law of that part of the British Isles shall not be recognised as valid in Great Britain.
(2) This section has effect whether or not the spouses are domiciled in any part of Great Britain and, if they are domiciled in some other country, notwithstanding that the divorce would be recognised as valid there."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing that, I am addressing your Lordships for the first time, and I am naturally conscious of the fame of this House and also of the many years of distinction that so many of your Lordships have given by way of service to the State. In these circumstances it would, in any event, be a daunting experience to address your Lordships for the first time. But I confess that it is no longer easy for me to address a new forum for the first time, so that when I ask your Lordships' indulgence, it is no mere empty phrase but the expression of a real need.
I am also conscious that it is to some extent a presumption that I should be making my first speech in your Lordships' House by way of proposing a new clause. I do it only because the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack asked me to do so, so that a problem that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord

213
Stow Hill, on Second Reading should have full discussion in Committee. The new clause that I have put down is designed to deal with that problem, though it is only right I should tell your Lordships that I am by no means certain that it is the best way of doing it. I hope, however, that it may be a useful pig for discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, described very clearly what the problem was. Some systems of law allow a divorce by the simple pronouncement by a husband three times of the words, "I divorce you". The divorce under those systems of law is then effective—or, sometimes, effective after a lapse of time—however blameless the wife may have been. By our law we are bound to recognise such a divorce if it is valid by the law of the domicile of the parties. The problem therefore exists independently of this Bill, although it is rendered more acute by two of its provisions.
It is by no means a minimal problem these days, with the interpenetration of societies and the great mobility of populations. I have been told that about 150 applications each year are made to Superintendent Registrars of Marriage for leave to remarry after pronouncement of the type of divorce that I have mentioned. There are bound to be more than that, because not all remarriages come before Superintendent Registrars of Marriage. Your Lordships will see that the danger of that system is that the whole of the safeguards of our system of judicial divorce are by-passed. It may well be that not only does the wife suffer an injustice, but her support is thrown on the taxpayer of this country. That is the problem that was pinpointed by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill.
The new clause which I venture to propose to your Lordships is rendered, I think, the more necessary, or some solution is rendered more necessary, by two provisions of this Bill, although, as I said, the problem exists independently of the Bill. The first is that we now propose to accord recognition to a divorce if it is pronounced, or if it is valid, by the law of the nationality or habitual residence, as well as by the law of domicile. In other words, at the moment it is sufficient that the husband—and therefore the wife—is domiciled in some country according to which the type of divorce
214
that I have mentioned is valid. But under the Bill we shall also be according recognition to divorces of the country of the nationality. For example, if a husband—and therefore a wife—is domiciled in Egypt or Pakistan, we accord recognition at the moment. Under the Bill we shall have to accord recognition even though the husband—and therefore the wife—is domiciled in this country, provided that his nationality is still in his country of origin.
The second respect in which the Bill renders the problem more acute is this. At the moment our law allows the courts in this country to refuse recognition to any rule of foreign law, not confined to divorce or matrimonial law, where to recognise it would cause injustice. That is applied in individual cases. The nearest we get to that in this Bill is in Clause 8(2)(b) on page 4 at line 6, where the court can refuse recognition if the recognition,
"would manifestly be contrary to public policy."
I am bound to say that that teems to me to be considerably narrower than the powers that the courts at present enjoy, to refuse recognition when it would be unjust to accord recognition. I think we should all be very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he could give us an assurance on that matter, or perhaps undertake to consider the matter before a later stage of the Bill.
What the new clause proposes is that we should, in fact, refuse recognition of a divorce obtained in the British Isles unless it is obtained in due process of our law; in other words, it takes steps to prevent the safeguards of our own matrimonial law being by-passed. It is, however, only right that I should tell your Lordships that I recognise that that proposal has several disadvantages. The first is perhaps a technical one and it really turns on the word "obtained". That word appears elsewhere in the Bill, it is true, and I think it is liable to cause difficulties. In some countries there has been superimposed on the ancient power of divorce of a husband by mere pronouncement of a "Bill of Divorcement", so to speak, a procedure whereby there shall be an attempt at reconciliation. In Pakistan, for example, to allow for this procedure to be followed the

215
divorce by simple repudiation does not take effect until after 90 days, and there may well be a difficulty in deciding where the divorce was obtained. Is it obtained in the place where it was pronounced, or is it obtained in the place where reconciliation failed?
But there are more serious objections which it is only right I should confess to your Lordships. In the first place, it is a serious inroad on the general recognition principle which the Bill so advantageously enshrines. The second objection is this. The English divorce court is not available to a husband unless he is domiciled in this country. If, then, we refuse him a divorce or refuse recognition to a divorce which is valid according to the law of his domicile, we may be refusing him a divorce altogether unless he is domiciled in this country. Even in the case of a wife who has a forum after three years' residence in this country there may still be a difficulty, because if she was married in a country which permits polygamy our courts have no machinery to allow matrimonial relief. That is a matter that the Law Commission has under consideration at the moment, but as the law now stands a wife, even if she were three years resident in this country, would not be able to get a divorce if she had been married according to a law which even potentially allowed polygamy.
The third matter is perhaps less substantial, and that is that the machinery which I have ventured to lay before your Lordships could be by-passed by the husband delivering the Talak elsewhere than in this country. He might, for example, deliver it by proxy in a country allowing divorce by proxy. He might merely take a Channel packet to France and deliver the bill of divorcement there. We should be bound, I think, then to recognise the efficacy of the divorce. Lastly, we ourselves now permit a husband who has defaulted on his matrimonial obligations to divorce a wife who has substantially performed hers and even though it would involve her in hardship, though not grave hardship, in which case the courts have some residual powers. So it may seem to your Lordships that it would be more logical and decent for us to recognise a foreign divorce, even though it be by a guilty husband of an innocent wife, provided the English court preserves
216
and retains the power to do financial equity between the parties.
It seems to me that that consideration is reinforced because if the wife, in the circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, drew attention, has an order for maintenance in an English court of summary jurisdiction, it would not be automatically discharged by the recognition of the divorce—any foreign divorce or, for that matter, an English divorce—and it might therefore be preferable to recognise the efficacy of the divorce and to allow the English courts to award maintenance where it would be equitable notwithstanding that divorce. I confess that that is the measure that I would myself prefer, although I am at request moving to insert this new clause.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack might want to consider this matter in the context of legislation on polygamous marriages. It is to some extent connected with that. But I confess I would be very sorry to see this Bill, which is, after all, before your Lordships' House, go by without using it as a vehicle for reform to meet the point the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, raised. But with those misgivings, and in order to enable your Lordships to express a view on this matter, I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: I think that this is the second time within about ten days that I have had the pleasure of congratulating a noble and learned Lord on his maiden speech, and it gives me particular pleasure to-day to be able to do so in the case of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. He is, as he well knows, a most welcome Member in all parts of the House, and I am sure that we all look forward to profiting for a long time from his advice and wisdom in those fields in which he has held such a high office and in which he has so much knowledge and experience.
I think it was my noble friend Lord Stow Hill who suggested that if the noble and learned Lord was here in time, it might be a happy occasion for him, if he thought fit, to introduce the subject matter of this Amendment this afternoon. I only wish that I could conclude by saying that I entirely agree with the Amendment and hope that the Committee will accept it; but, as has been

217
explained, this is a point on which there are two views. If I express a view, it is because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thought that this question ought to be raised and discussed, and in expressing a personal opinion I am not, of course, asking anyone sitting behind me to support me, because this subject has nothing to do with Party politics at all.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, very fairly summarised a good many of the arguments against this Amendment, and that will save me from doing more than stating very shortly the reasons why I am on the other side of the fence. The first is this. The basic principle of our law is to recognise the status of individuals as determined by the law of their domicile. In the Qureshi case, which the noble and learned Lord himself decided, he decided that a Talak divorce here had to be recognised where the husband was still domiciled in, I think, Pakistan. That was in accordance with the basic principle of our law. Secondly, the object of this Bill is, in the main, to avoid limping marriages. That is the reason why we pressed other countries to try to agree a Convention on the recognition of foreign divorces and separations. By "limping marriages" I mean, of course, those very unhappy states in which two people are married in one country but not in another country; the children are legitimate in one country but not in another country. The whole object of this Bill is to enable us to ratify The Hague Convention, the object of which is to reduce the number of limping marriages.
Now it would seem to me an extraordinary thing if we were then to introduce into the Bill a clause the main effect of which would be to create an additional number of about 150 limping marriages a year. That, I understand, is about the number of these Talak cases, and in most of the cases, particularly of Pakistanis, the people concerned do not give up their domicile but remain domiciled in Pakistan. Moreover, in one sense, but I do not mean in any technical sense, the Amendment seems to be rather outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill, as your Lordships know, really does only two things. First of all, it provides that the courts of Great Britain will recognise their own decisions as between Scotland and England and Wales, Northern Ireland and
218
so on. Secondly—and this is its main object—it is to deal with divorces which take place overseas. It seems rather odd, suddenly to introduce an Amendment dealing for the first time with divorces which take place here.
Then, as the noble and learned Lord has said, as I understand it, Talak does not, in fact, in itself create a divorce. Nothing happens for three months; immediate notice has to be gives both to the wife and to an arbitration council. The arbitration council has the duty of seeing whether it can effect a reconciliation between the parties, and if it comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to effect a reconciliation, it can then order payment of maintenance and return of dower. And, as I understand it, if Talak has taken place in a country other than the home country, say Pakistan, it is the duty of the Embassy or the High Commission to call an arbitration council in the place where Talak was penformed. If the sole objection is really to any non-judicial divorce, there can be no inherent merit in judicial proceedings as the sole means of dissolving marriages; and The Hague Convention itself obliges us to recognise non-judicial ones.
Lastly, and apart from those considerations against the Amendment, as well as certain others which the noble and learned Lord himself mentioned, I do not see what good this will dc. If a Pakistani husband says Talak here, there will follow the arbitration council, maintenance or not, and so forth; but in any case the divorce will be valid according to the law of Pakistan. The parties will no longer be regarded in Pakistan as married. It will create another "limping marriage", and will not really assist the wife if we do rot recognise the divorce. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the man has only to go to, say Pakistan (and not only to Pakistan: it may be to France or somewhere else—and I understand that the noble and learned Lord was quite right, as I always assume he is, in saying that by the law of Pakistan a man can say Talak by proxy) and get a proxy there to say Talak, and we shall be bound to recognise the divorce because it would be valid by the law of the domicile where he would be.
Speaking only for myself I feel that the balance of advantage lies in leaving

219
the situation as it is. It may well be that if and when we come to deal with polygamous marriage we should then reconsider the situation. But for the reasons I have given I hope that the noble and learned Lord will at least not press his Amendment to a Division this afternoon.
5.24 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I hope that the Committee will allow me to intervene for just one moment if only to express the intense pleasure I feel in being able to congratulate a very old friend of mine on his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. He and I have known each other for very many years. We have argued across the Floor of another place; and I hope that we shall have the opportunity to do that on many occasions halfway across the Floor of this House—not right across because he does not sit right on the other side of the House.
I thought, when I considered the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord had phrased, that he had most carefully and wisely gone a little way beyond the rather narrow confines, as he himself described them, of Clause 8 with its reference to "action manifestly contrary" to public policy and that he had perhaps, by his conception embodied in this Amendment, gone just about the right length; and that I should support his Amendment, a thing I very much wished to be able to do on purely personal grounds. I thought carefully upon it and my own approach is very much that of my noble and learned friend, Lord Gardiner, who has just spoken. I should have thought that when dealing with this question of "limping marriages" it is of the utmost importance to try to achieve clarity and finality. It is not really to anybody's interest for two people to be regarded in one country as divorced yet in another still married. I feel sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale will agree with me on that.
His object, as he explained, clearly was to put before the House a suggestion to try to deal with the difficult situation which arises out of the case of Qureshi v. Qureshi, in which he delivered such an interesting and valuable judgment, and to place before your Lordships the arguments on both sides—those in sup
220
port of the proposal he has made and those which could be advanced against it. I thought that he did that, if he will allow me to say so, just about as perfectly as it could be done. He deployed the considerations on both sides and I think he must have made all Members of your Lordships' House feel how fortunate we are to be able to include in our numbers one who can speak with such vast wisdom and experience on such an important yet infinitely complex aspect of our affairs.
Listening to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, I feel that the three difficulties that he himself raised really tipped the balance against his Amendment. There is a difficulty, having regard to the conciliation procedure, for example, in Talak cases, arising on the words "obtains". It is difficult to think of any other word that could be substituted for it. It would be very regrettable, to take his second point, if the result of the Amendment were sometimes to lead to a situation in which no divorce could be obtained by parties who manifestly ought not to be kept together. Finally, there is the point, at any event if we look at Talak type divorces, that by the exercise of the proxy procedure the noble and learned Lord's Amendment could be evaded.
Starting as I do from the standpoint that clarity is of the greatest importance, and welcoming very much the general objective of this Bill, which is to try to inform people finally and definitely what their marital status is in this country, and bearing in mind, as my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner said, that really the effect of the Amendment would be to go back from clarity, and to perpetuate in some cases what is described as the "limping marriage", I hope that my noble and learned friend will not think it unfriendly on my part if I say that I feel that, on balance, I should be against the Amendment that he proposes. But I should not like to conclude my remarks without thanking him for putting the rival considerations on both sides so extremely clearly and carefully, to enable me, at any rate, to make up my mind against his Amendment.
5.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that I may be forgiven for contributing a

221
little to this discussion although three very distinguished speeches have been delivered on what I regard as an extremely difficult problem. Before I embark on the difficulties I should like to join with the noble and learned Lords who have both spoken from the other side in congratulating my noble and learned friend, if I may still so call him, upon a most distinguished maiden speech: the more heartily because he is a very old personal friend of mine both at the Bar and as a colleague in a previous Government, and because in moving this Amendment he was in fact yielding to the blandishments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and myself on the Second Reading of this Bill. He has done not only the House a public service by making his maiden speech on this topic, but certainly me and if think the noble and learned Lord a personal service by enabling it to be ventilated in this way.
The reason why I rather encouraged this procedure is that the more I read of the Qureshi case which my noble and learned friend himself, as President, decided, the more I felt convinced that public discussion of this issue was very much in the public interest whatever way the issue was ultimately decided. My view on this was confirmed by the fact that, while I was a Member of another place, people were constantly writing to me in a constituency fashion (when I was speaking as the spokesman on Home Affairs for the Opposition), pointing out this and a number of very closely related problems which arose out of what I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—or was it the President himself?—described as the interpenetration of different communities; and I felt that Parliamentary discussion is an essential preliminary to clarifying public opinion about this issue.
The advice which I have consistently received from my Department has been that this Bill is probably not the proper vehicle for an Amendment of this kind; even if, despite the objection, it was the ultimate decision which Parliament took. For that reason alone, I shall in due course ask my noble and learned friend to withdraw the Amendment; but before I come to that, I should like to point out some of the complex issues of which the Qureshi case is, to some extent, an illustration.
222
In the first place, I should like to make very plain that it is not only the Moslem Talak which is involved in this complex; there is the Beth Din, for instance, which issues the Get; and two Israeli-domiciled persons, one of whom might very well be a British subject, could be the subject of a Get from one of the Beth Dins in the world, and from the Beth Din in London in particular. Moreover, in the last constituency which I represented before I joined your Lordships, there was a very large Cypriot community. So far as they are of Greek origin they are Greek Orthodox. I am told that the Archbishop of Thyatira holds an Ecclesiastical Court in this country especially for their be refit, and pronounces divorces according to the rites of the Greek Orthodox Church which, by the law of Cyprus, would be recognised.
These last two, the Jewish marriage and the Greek Orthodox marriage, are neither of them even potentially polygamous in the sense in which polygamy is recognised in the courts. Therefore this is not confined either to Pakistani marriages or to Moslem marriages in themselves. The same problem would, of course, arise in any Moslem Talak, because the Talak is not part of the law of Pakistan alone, it is part of the law of Islam; and any two characters who have indulged in a Talak divorce in this country, having been married according to the laws of Islam, would be affected by the Qureshi decision. So there is a very wide complex of kinds of marriage which can be involved in it.
Again, in order to show the complexity of the subject, the Moslem marriage itself is, in Moslem law, potentially polygamous; they have a "war establishment" of four at any one time, although they may not necessarily fill up the "war establishment" to its capacity. That potentially polygamous marriage is a marriage which, if indulged in, and if it does not become monogamous in some way, is one with which the British courts at the moment will have nothing whatever to do. One of the things which I think we have to consider in this complex of cases is whether it is good enough for the British courts simply to withdraw the hem of their jurisdictional garment away from such relationships, and not provide at least ancillary relief;

223
because a wife (I use the word without prejudice) can be deserted in the case of a polygamous marriage—and she may be the only wife—and one asks oneself whether she should not be entitled to maintenance in some circumstances. Certainly the Law Commission is likely to come to the conclusion that some kind of jurisdiction ought to be conferred.
The problem may be rendered even more complex. Suppose a potentially polygamous marriage, which may be pagan or Moslem (which gives rise to a different kind of problem) is entered into in, say, Pakistan, and the parties become domiciled here. As a result of a change of domicile it merges into a monogamous marriage by inperceptible degrees, and the courts here would have jurisdiction. The actual marriage in Qureshi, although between two Moslems, neither of whom had an English domicile, was in fact in an English Registry Office, and was therefore not a potentially polygamous marriage at all, except in religious law. The result of Qureshi—the President will correct me if I am wrong—would have been precisely the same if the girl had been an English girl and the marriage had been an English marriage. She would have been divorced just the same as long as the husband's domicile was Pakistani.
That gives me an opportunity to raise another related issue. The law as it stands is this: the status of marriage, as several noble and learned Lords have pointed out, is on principle based in this country on the law of domicile. In the case of a man, domicile is a question of fact. He starts with a domicile of origin, which it is relatively difficult to throw off, and if he changes his permanent home he acquires a domicile of choice; that is to say, he does not intend to go back to his original country. With a woman, although domicile starts as a question of fact, it ends as a question of law, because if she marries, she acquires conclusively in law her husband's domicile. This gives rise to a number of confusions with which I do not think I need to deal.
The women's societies of course are always pressing one to alter the law as a case of discrimination against women. It is not of course a discrimination against women, because the law of the domicile may be more favourable to a woman as well as less favourable. But I think it is
224
a ridiculous anomaly that the law of domicile should be a question of fact in relation to a man and a question of law in relation to a married woman. I think that will need to be looked at in this particular connection. Personally, I am beginning to doubt whether the law of divorce as recognised in this country ought to be anchored as completely as it is now to the question of domicile at all. We have breached very considerably both by judge-made law and by statutory law, the jurisdictional rule which riveted it to English domicile, and we are going further in the same direction by the provisions in this Bill. One wonders whether we should not turn over to being a residence country, or a national country, and leave domicile only a kind of residual source of jurisdiction. These things, I think, have to be considered very seriously.
There is another problem which I think we have to look at. It is that we are now going in for recognition of foreign divorce in a relatively big way by this Bill and, as I said on Second Reading, I am very much in favour of this. It will save people from these horrible "limping" marriages. On the other hand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, pointed out on Second Reading, the question arises as to whether a woman who is deserted here ought not to have some recourse to the courts here for ancillary relief, notwithstanding that her divorce may be recognised abroad. Maintenance orders and other orders for ancillary relief are not easily enforced abroad. Although we are going to do something about that—and I hope that we shall do more as time goes on—I cannot hold out an absolute assurance that there will be complete reciprocity in such a case. A woman may find that her husband comes back here having deserted her and got a foreign divorce. He may have assets here, and it may be that we want to acquire certain ancillary jurisdiction between ex-wife and ex-husband in order to give effect to a wife's rights.
All this, I think, adds up to the fact that we cannot really solve this complex problem this afternoon in this Bill, so I think the technical advice that I have been given is right. I think the balance of advantage coincides with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said, and what the noble and learned

225
Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said, and what I think the learned President indicated: that we must leave the Qureshi decision status quo for the moment. In the meantime, I have written to the Law Commission to give special consideration to this problem and certain related problems in the course of their examinaton of family law.
Obviously the problems are not confined to England. This is yet another branch of the law in which it is important that English and Scottish law should walk in step. So I have consulted also my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate about it, and I understand that they will be seeking similar advice from the Scottish Law Commission. I am sure that they will find our debate, and in particular the speech of the noble and learned Lord and his judgment in the case, and the speeches of the other two noble and learned Lords who have taken part, helpful in giving advice to Parliament on this highly complex subject.
The trouble with questions of this kind is that they are extremely technical and difficult, but at the same time the happiness of human beings is closely linked to the right solution of these technical and difficult problems. One is torn between a desire to remedy injustice quickly and the knowledge that if one does so hastily one will create more anomalies than one avoids. In these circumstances, I hope that my noble and learned friend will withdraw his Amendment. Should it be proposed again in another place, I should certainly be disposed to take advantage of the advice that we shall receive in that quarter as well.
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: I should like, first of all, to express my profound gratitude for the kind and generous words that the noble and learned Lords who have spoken in this debate have extended to me, although I could not help noticing that the personal friendliness was considerably greater than the friendliness to my new clause. May I make one or two points before acceding readily to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said that Talak does not create a divorce in itself. That is certainly true of Pakistan. But, as the noble and
226
learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, by general Islamic law it does. Then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred to the power of the arbitration council to award maintenance. Again that is, so far as I know, solely a provision of Pakistani law, and I know of no way in which any order or direction given by the arbitration council can be enforced in this country unless by an order of a court which we recognise under the Maintenance Orders Act. That, certainly, would not be so in the circumstances of an arbitration council sitting in this country in the way described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and, indeed, as echoed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. As to the desirability of certainty and the evil and injustice of "limping marriages", one has to weigh that against the injustice that under the present system could undoubtedly be caused in the way described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, on Second Reading: the injustice to the wife, and injustice indeed to the British taxpayer who might have to stand behind her.
It is for that reason that, if I may say so with respect, I personally favour the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that the way to deal with this matter is by giving better powers to English courts to award maintenance after a Talak divorce or any comparable divorce. The problem is much more than one of Islamic law. The Jewish Get has not the same potentialities of injustice to the wife, because, unlike its origin in the Book of Deuteronomy, the wife has to accept the Get before the Beth Din—she cannot simply be repudiated. I think that the procedure in the Greek ecclesiastical courts is similar in that regard: though the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was of course quite right in saying that both those procedures, equally with the recognition of Talak divorce, involved the by-passing of the safeguards of the English or the Scottish matrimonial law. Having said that, and hoping that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, will give further consideration to the injustice to wives and those who stand behind them that is implicit in this procedure, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Proof of facts relevant to recognition]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 43, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "shall—

(a) if both spouses took part in the proceedings, be conclusive evidence of the fact found; and

(b) in any other case, be sufficient proof of that fact unless the contrary is shown."

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment makes a finding of fact by the foreign court on which its jurisdiction was based conclusive evidence of that fact where both spouses took part in the foreign proceedings, and sufficient evidence (unless the contrary is shown) if they did not. The purpose of the Amendment is to give effect to a criticism made of the draft on Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill.
The present form of Clause 5(1) makes the finding of fact binding on any court in Great Britain if both spouses took part in the foreign proceedings, but enables the finding in any other case to be treated as sufficient evidence of the fact found if the court thinks fit. The noble and learned Lord criticised the lack of provision on the ground that it would lead to uncertainty. He argued that it might be difficult to find out many years later whether both spouses had in fact taken part in the foreign proceedings, and, where they had not, he thought it unsatisfactory that the matter should be one of discretion.
There is obviously a good deal of force in the noble and learned Lord's comments. It can also be said that Clause 5(1)(b), and to a lesser extent Clause 5(1)(a), may be criticised as operating solely on the courts, whereas in most cases it is not a court but the Registrar of marriages who is concerned to know whether the foreign divorce is to be recognised. It might be argued that to ask the Registrar to estimate how a court might exercise its discretion would be an unfair burden on him. There is therefore a case for treating the foreign finding as evidence of the fact found, without bringing the court into it. That is what the Amendment does.
To achieve complete certainty, it would be necessary to make no distinction
228
between proceedings in which both spouses have taken part and those in which only one spouse had done so. But there are objections to this, and they were summarised in paragraph 32 of the Law Commission's Report. Findings in what are virtually or entirely ex parte proceedings—that is, proceedings in which only one of the two sides is represented—are not always, as one knows by experience, very reliable. There would be an element of unfairness in giving the other spouse no chance to challenge their correctness.
The alternative way of meeting the criticism—and this is the way I have adopted in the Amendment—is to create a rebuttable presumption in favour of the correctness of the finding. This will mean that unless there is some positive evidence to the contrary the foreign court's finding will be taken as correct, and there will be no question of discretion. I agree that this does not go quite the whole way to meet the noble Lord's criticism. If, for example, after twenty years, there is no evidence whether the respondent took part in the divorce proceedings or not it may be difficult to say whether the foreign court's finding is conclusive or merely a rebuttable presumption. I do not see any way of avoiding this, but I have done my best to meet the arguments of the noble Lord.
LORD STOW HILL: I only rise to express my great gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for having met, in the Amendments he has framed, the points that I sought to raise on Second Reading. I think the Amendments meet the point most amply, and the whole difficulty is resolved by the scheme which he has embodied in his wording. I am most grateful to him. I am very content indeed with the Amendment as it stands, and I hope that your Lordships will be prepared to approve it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Short title, interpretation, transitional provisions and commencement]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, which is consequential upon Amendment No. 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("those provisions").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

LAND REGISTRATION AND LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
5.54 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to propose the Second Reading of the Land Registration and Land Charges Bill. It is mercifully short, miscellaneous in its provision and, I hope, useful without being controversial. Unfortunately it is also highly technical and almost entirely unintelligible. But I will do my best to explain it in simple language.
Clauses 1 and 2 are basically financial in their purpose. Under the growing—alas! much too slowly growing—system of land registration introduced into this country by the Land Transfer and Land Registration Acts, the title to land which is registered is guaranteed by the Government. That is, if the title afterwards proves defective the Government provide a money indemnity. In accordance with the thinking of the time the payments of indemnity were made out of a fund earmarked for the purpose. I think this thinking is now universally regarded as outmoded, and the method adopted uneconomical. The present value of the fund is only about £10,000, but it can be replenished from time to time out of the Consolidated Fund. Its management wastes an unreasonable amount of man-hours, and the objective is to abolish it. The rights of the public to indemnity will not be affected by Clauses 1 and 2, but the fund is abolished. Indemnity claims will be handled by the Chief Land Registrar, and payments made directly out of the Land Registry Vote. Disputed claims will continue to be decided by the Court.
Clause 3 removes a small injustice which has been created by judicial interpretation. Section 83 of the Land Registration Act 1925 excludes the right to
230
indemnity in cases where the applicant has caused or contributed to the loss by his own act. The effect of judicial decisions is that this exclusion may extend to quite innocent acts, although in practice extra-statutory administrative practice allows indemnity where the causation is in fact innocent. This practice is now given statutory recognition by Clause 3.
Clause 4 removes a minor nuisance from the troubled life of the Chief Land Registrar. A curious practice has grown up in recent years of selling what are called souvenir plots of land to purchasers who, for sentimental or romatic reasons, wish to own a few square feet of English earth. These plots may be no more than a few square yards, or even smaller. This is innocent enough in itself, and it is even beneficial if and when it makes a modest contribution to our balance of payments. But it causes a quite disproportionate amount of trouble, and in practice the Land Registrary would not accept souvenir plots, although their refusal to do so might be questioned on legal grounds.
To make the Land Registry investigate each title and issue a separate certificate in respect of each tiny plot would call for a totally unjustifiable increase in the Registry's manpower resources, or else divert existing manpower resources from the much more useful work of extending the land registration system. If the existing staff were employed on this work the extension of the system throughout England and Wales would be seriously retarded. Clause 4 operates to bless souvenir buyers by enabling them in areas of compulsory registration to obtain sound titles to their plots by unregistered conveyancing procedures, thus preserving a harmless practice without clogging the administrative machinery.
Clauses 5 to 8 and Clause 11 herald the advent of the computer into the indexing of the registers and are to be welcomed as part of the white heat of the technological revolution. Clause 5 removes the need for alphabetical indexing, authorises request and search by telephone and teleprinter, and enables search fees to be paid by credit account. The effect of the Amendment on the principal Act can be seen by the Keeling Schedule introduced by Clause 11. Clause 6 provides for the use of office copies as evidence. Clauses 7 and 8 are either

231
technical or consequential. Clause 9 is designed to relieve solicitors from a minor irritant caused by the necessity to register certain land charges under the Land Charges Act immediately before they are carried on to the register of title under the Land Registration Act. I understand that the Law Society will give some thanks for this small relief. In its present form the scope of the clause is too wide, and I have in mind some short technical Amendments to deal with this defect, with which I need not trouble the House at this stage. Clauses 12 to 15 inclusive are consequential or technical.
The Bill does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Bill commences with the passage of the Bill, except for some of the provisions relating to the abolition of the Insurance Fund, and the land charges computer, which require preliminary administrative action. These will be brought into operation by statutory instrument. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
6.0 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his lucid explanation of this very technical Bill. It is another law reform Bill. I conceive it to be part of my duty from time to time to remind the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that some Act which has received the Royal Assent some time previously is not yet in force, or that the Government ought really to make up their minds about one or two recent Reports from the Law Commission or other Committees. But I should be less than fair if I did not say that, so far as responsibility is in the hands of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, this Government are doing very well in law reform. I cannot think, offhand, of anything else that they are doing well in, but I think they are doing well with law reform. I only wish the noble and learned Lord were responsible for the whole of our law, and then we could really press on. Where we are falling behind in law reform is in those Ministries which arrogate certain branches of the law to themselves.
232
The noble and learned Lord has said that this subject is highly technical. It concerns the Land Registry. I have known for some time about this position about the indemnity fund, the insurance fund. It has not been satisfactory. It causes a great deal of unnecessary administration, which costs time and staff, and the proposed solution is one that has my wholehearted approval. I am also delighted that souvenir land has been dealt with, because I know personally what a nuisance this was being to the learned Registrar. It really is a lot of nonsense, simply in order that somebody in America who buys two square feet of field in Kent can then talk about, "My English property in the county where my family came from". Somebody is making a good deal of money out of it. As the noble and learned Lord intimated, that may be good for exports; but it has been, I know, an awful nuisance to the Registrar when the Registry did not want these tiny bits of land registered. This provision will deal with that situation.
Then the computer has arrived. As I understand the position, it is probable that registration of title to land can never be done by computer. There are various reasons for that. Land charges registry, however, can be done by computer. This is estimated to save a staff of 150 and is obviously the right thing to do. I will not at this hour trouble your Lordships with any of the details on this part of the Bill.
I give a welcome to the Keeling Schedule, while asking the noble and learned Lord a question, to which I do not expect any answer this afternoon. Mr. Keeling's idea was a very good one: that, instead of having to look all round a Bill which says that section so-and-so is in future to read so-and-so, and trying to find out what it all amounts to, if there were a substantial number of amendments to some existing Act we could set them out in the Schedule so that the legislators would have to look only at the Schedule to see exactly what it was proposed to do. If that had been properly done, there would be shown in thick type what it was intended to put in, and in italics the things it was intended to leave out. The Parliamentary draftsmen produce Keeling Schedules from time to time—and I

233
always think they are very useful—and include in thick type the things which Parliament is being asked to put into legislation, but, for a technical reason which I have never been able to accept, they decline to put in in italics the things which Parliament is being asked to take out of an Act. I have never believed that there can be any good reason for this attitude, but the highest concession I have ever been able to obtain was that they put in dots to indicate that something had been left out—but, of course, that does not indicate what is being omitted.
So, if one takes a simple example in this Bill one sees in the Keeling Schedule:
"16.—(1) Any person may search in any register … kept in pursuance of this Act on paying the prescribed fee."
One then has to look at Clause 5(2) to find out that what is being left out are the words "an index". It would save trouble, I should have thought, if what it is proposed to leave out were put into the Keeling Schedule in italics. But, as I have said, I do not expect the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, without notice, to answer that question to-night. My Lords, I applaud this further example of the interest of the noble and learned Lord, which I know he does take, in law reform; and I am sure that this legislation will give the Land Registrar a happier Easter.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.