Lords Sitting of 2 March 1972

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

PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further steps they propose to take towards securing an agreed and equitable prices and incomes policy.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the Government's policy was made clear in our debate on January 31. Considerable progress has in fact been made in securing moderation in wage settlements in both the public and the private sectors. This is of benefit to the whole community. It remains our policy to ensure that the progress which has been achieved so far is not put at risk. In addition, my Lords, we have made it clear that we would welcome discussions on an agreed voluntary policy. That remains our position.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Earl thinks that the policy was made clear in that debate, he is the only one in the House who does. Is he aware that on Sunday last his Prime Minister made a broadcast in which he said, despite that debate, that he was prepared to discuss these matters with the T.U.C.? May I ask, therefore, if we are to understand that no approach has been made to the T.U.C. since Sunday?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord was referring to our Prime Minister rather than to any particular Party's Prime Minister, if I may say so. I am not quite certain what the inwardness of the noble Lord's second observation was, Would he repeat it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, for the time being we do not have a Prime Minister on this side, and I used the word "your" in the sense that I thought there would be some liaison between the noble Earl and the right honourable gentleman who is the Prime Minister of our country. The point I am making is that on Sunday last, subsequent to our debate, the Prime Minister said that he would be happy to talk with the T.U.C. on this matter. Are we to understand that approaches have been made to the T.U.C. since that invitation on the television, which, as the noble Earl will no doubt agree, was scarcely a personal invitation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should have thought that that invitation was in fact an approach to the T.U.C. What I have just said in answer to the noble Lord's Question about the degree to which the Government would welcome discussions on an agreed incomes policy, or voluntary incomes policy, is a reiteration of that invitation.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, does the noble Earl not realise that my noble friend Lord Beswick's Question was about "an agreed and equitable" incomes policy? Would he not accept that the one factor which has been left out in the Government's policy is the factor of equity? Would he not further agree that unless we have an equitable policy which is also agreed the Government have no hope of defeating inflation, even at twenty strokes?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I agree that the noble Baroness has read her noble friend's Question aright, but I would dissent from the conclusion she draws that the Government's policy in this field has been inequitable.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I ask whether the policy which the noble Earl is adumbrating at the present time—and I am speaking from experience of it—is simply to declare that there shall be no more than 8 per cent. advance in wages, and that this shall be applied in the nationalised industries and we must hope it will be applied in the private industries? Having regard to the varying increases in wages which have operated in the past three months, does he think that policy is a sound one?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the policy which the Government are pursuing in this matter applies equally in the private as in the public sector. From what I have seen of the statistics available from the Department of Employment, it would seem that it has been equally successful in the private as in the public sector.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could the Minister say that with an incomes policy of the character he has depicted he can expect people in industry to accept an increase in wages which is 5 per cent. less than the 13 per cent. increase in the the cost of living that has taken place in the past twelve months?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not certain to which settlement the noble Lord may be referring, but that certainly does not apply to any of the settlements that I personally have had anything to do with.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, are we to take the noble Earl's declaration to mean that the policy of general pressures instead of an equitable and agreed incomes policy has come to the same lamentable end as the policy for "lame ducks" which has been given up with such panache?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would not agree with the noble Lord's conclusion on this or indeed on certain other matters.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I follow up the point I made about the difference in private and public industries so far as wage advances are concerned? May I ask the noble Earl whether he has heard of a tool-room settlement that was made that was well in advance of the figure the Government have laid down?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, there are, of course, exceptions in this field—I should not wish to argue to the contrary—but there has been a de-escalation as much in the private sector as in the public sector, and that statement of mine is based on a statistical foundation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one further question, reverting to one of his supplementary answers to me? Does he really suggest that it is adequate for the Prime Minister to give an invitation out over the broadcasting
1180
system and not follow it up with any postal, telephonic or Telex communication?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: It is because of the high price of postage, my Lords.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think that that is a correct inference to draw from my words.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, would not the noble Earl my Leader agree that as the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is based on the problem of a television broadcast, it is extremely important that political exchanges should, so far as is possible, be kept away from the television screen?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I would.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question, because I should be very loath to withhold praise for what the Government have done? Could he publish as soon as possible the increases given in the private sector and the increases given in the public sector, in the first case taking perhaps the last fifty major increases that have occurred?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will certainly take careful note of the noble Lord's suggestion and ensure that it is conveyed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would not the noble Earl accept that a wages policy is not an incomes policy, and that if we are to have regard to equity we must have a policy which affects all incomes, whether they are earned or unearned?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it would take a rather long answer to deal categorically with the noble Baroness's question. This is a matter of considerable dimensions. We have already debated it at some length in your Lordships' House once or twice recently. I should certainly not be averse to a further debate on one of the most pressing issues of our time, in which I think complete success has eluded Governments of most political complexions. I would suggest that it might be easier and better to treat this subject by way of debate rather than by the admittedly and inevitably rather perfunctory question and answer method.

EIRE CITIZENS AND UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT
3.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there are any restrictions which prevent citizens of the Irish Republic from sitting in either House of Parliament.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the disqualifications for membership of either House of Parliament which apply to citizens of the Republic of Ireland are the same as those which apply to citizens of independent Commonwealth countries. They are summarised in Chapter III of the eighteenth edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that it is an absurd anomaly that the holder of an Irish Peerage who is a resident of the United Kingdom and a citizen of the United Kingdom cannot sit in the Upper House of Parliament, whereas an individual who is a citizen of Eire and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth can in fact sit in the Upper House of Parliament? Further, may I ask my noble friend this question? If in fact, as I understand it, aliens can sit in Parliament, would it not be wise for Her Majesty's Government to institute some machinery to ensure that they adhere to their Oath of Allegiance?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as I said in the original Answer, the position of citizens of the Republic of Ireland is exactly the same in this respect as that of citizens of any independent Commonwealth country. I think your Lordships will agree that a number of noble Lords who have been citizens of independent Commonwealth countries have made a considerable contribution to the proceedings of your Lordships' House, although they may not have held citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would my noble friend still not agree that it is an absurd anomaly that a resident of the United Kingdom and a citizen of the United Kingdom cannot sit in the Upper House of Parliament, whereas a citizen of Eire can?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the position is that under the Ireland Act 1949 the Republic of Ireland is not a member of the Commonwealth but its citizens are treated in our law as though it were.

EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE AND CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
3.18 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can explain in more detail the answer given by Air Marshal Sir Harold Martin in paragraph 1737 of the second report from the Expenditure Committee 1971–72 when he said "the O.C.U. as a ' guesstimate' has about * * *"; and whether they can state how this compares with the corresponding figures for the five preceding years.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the Air Marshal was discussing the possibility of reinforcing the Harrier force in R.A.F. Germany, in an emergency, from the Harrier Operational Conversion Unit. It is not the practice to publish the size of operational squadrons or of the associated Operational Conversion Units.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, whom I hold in very high esteem, but does he not think that this Report treats Parliament with contempt when 69 of its pages are bespattered with asterisks which conceal information from Members and thus prevent them from intelligently debating the facts in issue? Furthermore, if the idea is to hide the information from secret agents, do not the asterisks themselves constitute a kind of spies' guide? Do not they really say to Moscow: We've

1183
marked several important secret matters with asterisks to show you that they are specially worthy of investigation by your agents"?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Sub-Committee in their Report—and probably the noble Lord has read it—acknowledged that they had received more classified information from my Department than anybody had ever received before. I think it is one thing to tell the Committee a number of facts: one has to be a little more careful in what one publishes. I accept that this is not a very satisfactory way of doing it. The other way, of course, was not to tell the Sub-Committee. I think what we must do is to examine carefully whether it was necessary to withhold all this information, but I think one should be a little careful not to get too much the other way.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is it not slightly unfortunate that this gallant officer used baby language invented by the Economist newspaper?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I imagine that my noble friend is referring to "guesstimate" as a word. I have always believed that a "guesstimate" was an estimate in the days of noble Lords opposite.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, surely the noble Lord is not naive enough to think that the Russians have not got all the information about the size of the Harrier force that was concealed from the readers of the Select Committee's Report. Why is it that we insist on retaining far stricter security control against the release of this information than the United States of America, whose contribution to Western security is of an order of magnitude greater than ours?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as a matter of fact I am naive enough to believe that our enemies do not have all that information.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, does not the Question ask how one figure compares with another? If an Answer cannot be given in actual figures, can it not be given in percentages as between one figure and another?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, this Question was asked seriously because I thought it was a matter of importance, but as the noble Lord has said that he will examine it to see what happens next year, that closes the matter so far as I am concerned.

A.45 ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES
3.23 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: 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 it is correct that they are carrying out a feasibility study on the A.45 (Ipswich to the Midlands) to ascertain the type of improvement to be carried out (i.e., ordinary dual carriageway or motorway); and how soon the study will be completed, so that work can proceed as rapidly as possible.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, there is no feasibility study, In June, 1971, the whole length of the A.45 from Cambridge to Ipswich was included in the preparation pool for comprehensive improvement. Some schemes on this route were already in preparation before June, 1971. The larger schemes are still being carried forward towards construction stage and the comprehensively improved route will be designed to fit in with them. However, it is necessary to take a comprehensive look at some of the smaller schemes in case they involve abortive expenditure. Most of these smaller schemes provide for dualling along the existing alignment, but it is possible that in some places an entirely new route might provide the better solution from the point of view of the local environment and in giving value for money. We will aim to complete this comprehensive look as soon as possible so that these schemes, if they can be accepted as part of the overall solution, are not unnecessarily delayed.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him a supplementary question? In view of the fact that Felixstowe Docks are about to be doubled in size and there is every possibility that

1185
this country will go into the Common Market, and as this route between the Midlands and the East Anglian ports is of vital importance, is it not necessary to try to speed up the work? Because although some of the by-passes have been authorised and the Bury St. Edmunds By-pass is out to tender now, nothing at all is happening in regard to the dualling between by-passes, and that is worrying a great many people.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I completely take what the noble Lord said about the ports. This is an urgent review and we should have the answer within a few months.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend if instead of dualling along the existing alignment he would ask his Department to consider making two carriageways along the same line?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I have a certain sympathy with my noble friend.

IMPRISONMENT OF TIMOTHY DAVEY IN TURKEY
3.25 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely,
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to make representations to the Government of Turkey regarding the sentence of six years and three months' imprisonment and a fine of £4,190 imposed yesterday on the British schoolboy, Timothy Davey, for a drug offence?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the House will have heard with deep concern of the sentence of 6 years' imprisonment passed in Turkey on Timothy Davey, a boy of 14 years of age, after conviction for conspiracy to traffic in drugs. I understand that an appeal is being made and that the case is therefore sub judice. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs asked the Turkish Ambassador to call to see him last night to express Her Majesty's Government's concern about Timothy Davey. My right honourable
1186
friend made clear to the Turkish Government his hope that the remaining legal processes can be hastened to the greatest possible extent. If the trial court's decisions are nevertheless confirmed, I understand that there will still be an opportunity for an appeal for clemency.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that full rely, may I ask whether he is aware that the last thing one wants to do is to prejudice a friendly response from the Government and Parliament of Turkey of which there is some hope; and would Her Majesty's Government consider not only the long sentence but the fine, in view of the fact that under Turkish Law the prisoner might have to serve two years' conscripted service at the end of the sentence if that fine is not paid?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the dilemma here is that the judiciary in Turkey is independent of the Executive, as it is in this country. At the same time, it is impossible not to feel sympathy for this 14-year old boy. As I said in my original Answer, the proceedings are still before the courts, since an appeal is pending against the sentence, which includes the fine as well as the sentence of custodial imprisonment. My right honourable friend has made it clear that he feels it is of the greatest importance that there should be the minimum delay in hearing the appeal.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I think we should all wish to thank the noble Lord for the sympathetic Answer that he has given and the very helpful attitude that Her Majesty's Government are taking. Perhaps most of us—indeed, probably all of us—would agree that it would be most unwise on an occasion of this kind to do or to say anything at all which might make it more difficult for clemency to be exercised in a case of such delicacy.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that most people will agree with the concern which has been expressed by the Secretary of State to the Turkish Ambassador? Could the noble Lord say whether the Foreign Secretary was able to find out how long the appeal proceedings are likely to take, and whether he has satisfied himself that the Davey family are in a position to be adequately represented at the appeal and to

1187
pay the legal costs that they will incur in Turkey?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am not in a position to add to the original Answer as to what passed between the Turkish Ambassador and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Answer refers specifically to the Foreign Secretary's hope that the remaining legal processes could be hastened to the greatest possible extent. I understand that the lawyer representing Timothy Davey was chosen by him and those advising him, and that certain funds have been made available by charitable organisations and others which should be adequate to meet the cost.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be making a Statement on the Report of the Parker Committee of Privy Counsellors at a convenient moment after half past three. This will be followed by a Statement to be made by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir on the all-Party delegation to Rhodesia.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to move that the Road Traffic Bill be now read a third time, and in doing so to remind your Lordships that it is pure consolidation.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY BILL
3.30 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (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.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, we on this side have no intention of opposing the passing of a Bill of this kind which comes from another place, which has received a Second Reading in this House and, of course, has received Second and Third Readings in another place. Nevertheless, it would be wrong of me not to delay your Lordships for a moment or two to make clear why we think that this is one of the worst Bills that this Government has introduced—and that is indeed an achievement! The reasons why we take this view are, first, that this is a Bill which, as your Lordships know, deals almost exclusively with the hiving off of a well-established public enterprise business which has served the nation well, which has served the nation throughout Labour and Conservative Administrations without being interfered with. The purpose of this Bill is purely to hive off that business exclusively to the private sector. I am bound to remind your Lordships that this is so because your Lordships will not find one word in the Bill that says that it is so.
Therefore, my second complaint is that not only is this a piece of pure unjustified dogma, because not one word of justification has been put before your Lord-ships, who have been expected to pass it with some unexpressed philosophical approval; not only has not one word been said in justification of the principle of the Bill, but the Bill itself has been drawn so as to make it perfectly clear that the Government have power to dispose of this business either to the private or to the public sector. Of course, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has made it absolutely clear—nobody could have been more straightforward and candid than the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—that notwithstanding the fact that the Government are taking these wide powers in the Bill they propose to exercise them narrowly by the Secretary of State concerned approving only a transfer to the private sector.

1189
Although I am a comparatively new Member, I have a deep appreciation of your Lordships' House. I should have thought that was something we all wanted to share, and therefore that we all wanted to see that your Lordships' House had good reasons for justifying the way it deals with Bills. Here is a Bill for which no justification has been put forward, for which the only justification in another place was questionable management of Cook's, which, to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, he has not repeated in this place; he carefully avoided saying one word in criticism of the management of Cook's. This was the sole consideration in another place, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was, if I may be permitted to say so, extremely wise in his self-denial. First of all, there is no evidence of bad management; and secondly, so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, there were only two speeches from the Back Benches, one from the Conservative Back Benches and one from the Cross Benches, and both were in support of the good management of this business.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, as ex-Chairman of the Consumer Council, said that the Consumer Council had never had any problems so far as Cook's was concerned, although it had had many problems so far as other travel organisations were concerned. They will be familiar to your Lordships and I need not remind you of them. She was also good enough to say that as a Member of Parliament she was anxious to record her appreciation, shared by all those present in your Lordships' House, for the good work Cook's had done for all Members of Parliament and all Ministers in assisting them in their travels. That was the evidence of the noble Baroness.
As I say, there was a speech from the Cross Benches, from perhaps the most authoritative person in your Lordships' House in this particular field, the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who was concerned with setting up the nationalised transport organisation and, once it was set up, was for many years concerned as the Chairman, and therefore had experience both as the most senior civil servant at the beginning and as the Chairman running the nationalised Board. His view, as he expressed it to us, was that the management had been quite unfairly
1190
criticised in another place. So while not wishing to detain your Lordships longer than is absolutely necessary, I am bound to register our deep dissatisfaction with the way the Bill is drafted, with the determination of the Government not to justify to reasonable, open minds the proposal which they, as the first Conservative Government to do so, now make, Cook's having been left completely undisturbed throughout the 13 years of the previous Conservative Government's Administration.
They have not attempted to justify it, as they could not, in terms of competition. We may not share the same philosophy, but at all events we are under a responsibility to judge any proposal that is put before your Lordships' House. We could take the view that competition is not so simple as it was at the beginning of the century. Nevertheless, nobody has ever attempted to put forward, even within the Conservative philosophy of competition, that this transfer hiving off to the private sector could possibly increase competition. It will either leave it as it is or reduce competition. So in those circumstances, where the only thing one can say is that the decision must have been prompted by sheer dogma, having regard to the lack of candour in the Bill, we are bound to register our regret and our opposition to the Bill: our opposition to what it proposes to do, and our deep regret that the Government has gone about it in this way.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I intervene briefly? Yesterday we had a very interesting debate on the interests of the consumer. As one who has been a "consumer" of Thomas Cook's for a good many years, may I say that I have never had the slightest cause for dissatisfaction about the service that they give. I should have said that bad management generally resulted in the dissatisfaction of customers. That certainly has not been so in my case.
3.39 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I am grateful to him for acquitting me of any lack of candour in my handling of this Bill. He referred

1191
to Thomas Cook's recent history and to its existence for 13 years under the previous Conservative Government; but I should like to remind noble Lords that Thomas Cook's is much older than that. It began its existence 130 years ago. It began in the private sector; it prospered in the private sector. We believe that it ought to continue in the private sector, and we are sure that it will continue to prosper in the private sector. That is the reason for our introduction of the Bill; it is the reason I have given all along, and the reason I should like to leave before your Lord-ships.
On Question, Bill passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND DETAINEES: INTERROGATION METHODS
3.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to repeat here a Statement about the Report of the Privy Counsellors, under the chairmanship of Lord Parker of Waddington, which by now will have been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"This Report is published to-day; and copies are now available in the Vote Office"—
that will be the Printed Paper Office here.
"The Government have not found it necesssary to omit any passage on grounds of security; and the Report is published with only minor amendmendments which do not in any way affect the sense.
"The terms of reference of the Committee were to inquire whether, and if so in what respects, the procedures currently authorised for the interrogation of persons suspected of terrorism, and for their custody while subject to interrogation, require amendment. The Government are indebted to Lord Parker and his colleagues for the scrupulous care with which they have examined this very difficult subject.
"The Committee found themselves unable to agree; and they have therefore
1192
submitted a Majority Report signed by Lord Parker and my right honourable and learned friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames"—
that is of course, Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter—
"together with a Minority Report signed by Lord Gardiner.
"The majority find that the methods in question, which had been applied on a number of occasions in the past under successive Governments in various parts of the world, were applied in Northern Ireland in August, 1971, to 12 detainees, and in October to two more. They consider—and I quote—that 'there is no doubt that the information obtained by these two operations directly and indirectly was responsible for the saving of lives of innocent citizens'. They conclude that the use of the methods involved could be justified in exceptional circumstances subject to further safeguards which they recommend. They consider, however, that the use of these techniques in some, if not all, cases would offend against English law; but they refrain from expressing any view about the position in Northern Ireland where legal proceedings which raise this issue are pending. Lord Gardiner in the Minority Report considers that these methods are objectionable in all circumstances.
"The Government, having reviewed the whole matter with great care and with particular reference to any future operations, have decided that the techniques which the Committee examined will not be used in future as an aid to interrogation."
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that we shall all wish to thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating that Statement. I believe this is also a case where thanks are due to Her Majesty's Government for setting up this Commission in the first place. I personally should like to pay tribute to the courage which the Government showed in the composition of the Commission. Our thanks must also go to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, and to Mr. Boyd-Carpenter for the way in which they undertook something which, as the noble and learned Lord said, must have been distasteful.

1193
I imagine that we shall all wish to study these two Reports with very great care. Both the Majority and the Minority Reports are of some length and will need to be studied with some care. May I say that all of us will express some relief at the decision to which Her Majesty's Government arrived in their final paragraph, whether for the reasons expressed in the Majority Report or in the Minority Report. I think there will be general satisfaction that the methods used will not in future be used. May I ask in this context whether one can assume that these methods were not used after the Compton Report? May I also ask whether we can assume that after the legal proceedings in Northern Ireland are completed, steps will be taken to regularise the position as between Northern Ireland and this country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to repeat his last question? My attention was diverted.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was asking whether we could assume that after legal proceedings are completed in Northern Ireland steps will be taken to assure that the legal position will be the same there as in this part of the United Kingdom?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we very much welcome the decision that has been made by the Government in this case? May I ask him whether the cases mentioned in the Statement were the sum total to whom the techniques were applied? That is to say, that only the 14 individuals who were questioned in August and October respectively were subjected to the procedures involved? Is he also aware that we very much endorse the request that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that the law in Northern Ireland, which appears to be in some doubt, should certainly be brought into line with that which operates in this country where such procedure would have been illegal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the way in which they have received this Statement. I think that the assumptions made by the noble Lord are correct. I cannot of course speak for
1194
Northern Irish law, but I have an assurance that the R.U.C. will not in future use these techniques as an aid to interrogation in Northern Ireland; and that, I think, covers the position. So far as I understand it, the use of the particular methods was confined to the fourteen cases. There was a further aspect which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked about—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords. I asked whether we can assume that the techniques were not employed after the publication of the Compton Report.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is my understanding: that the fourteen cases (I am not quite sure of the date of the Compton Report) referred to in the Parker Report are a complete catalogue of the cases in which the techniques were used.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I express the hope that we may be able to debate this matter perhaps in a wider context, because it is quite impossible to comment on just hearing the Report. May I ask the Lord Chancellor this question? If I understood him correctly, the Government have agreed that, despite the Majority Report, these practices shall not be applied in the future. Does that agreement cover all the three main methods: the black bag; the noise; and the spreadeagling against a wall for a considerable period? Does it cover all those three matters?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the question of a debate is of course not for me but for the House and the usual channels. If the noble Lord wants to pursue it, he can pursue it by that means. As regards the second question he raised, of course all methods which will not be used as an aid to interrogation are covered.

ELECTRICITY BILL
3.50 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has three main provisions: it increases the statutory limits on the borrowing powers of the Electricity Council and Boards in England and Wales and of the Scottish Electricity Boards; it authorises contributions to

1195
accelerated expenditure by the industry designed to promote employment; and it removes certain impediments to the transfer of property between Boards. The immediate effect of Clause 1 is to raise the limit on outstanding borrowings from the present figure of £4,400 million to £5,200 million for the Electricity Council and Boards and from £800 million to £950 million for the Scottish Boards. The clause makes provision for the borrowing limits to be raised further—by orders made by the Secretary of State—up to a maximum of £6,500 million for the Electricity Council and Boards and £1,200 million for the Scottish Boards. The interim limits are expected to meet the borrowing requirements of the industry up to about the middle of 1974 and the final limits up to March, 1978.
In the past two years the industry's borrowing has risen because increases in electricity prices have not kept pace with the increases in the industry's costs. The increases in electricity prices made by the Boards in the early months of last year were the first general increases since 1967, and were smaller than would have been justified by costs. Since July, 1971, further changes to match prices more equitably to costs have been restrained by the Boards' compliance with the C.B.I, initiative. Price increases are being made by most of the Area Boards at present, and these comply strictly with the C.B.I, guidelines; that is, they do not exceed 5 per cent. and follow after an interval of at least 12 months since the last increases. The Government recognise the strain that this is imposing on the industry's finances, and the question whether any assistance may be needed to restore the industry to a commercial footing is being considered with them. The need to check inflation was overriding, however, and the Government are most grateful for the industry's co-operation in this task.
In Scotland, the pattern has been a little different. Further legislation was needed to increase the borrowing powers of the Scottish Boards in 1969. The Electricity (Scotland) Act 1969 set the present limit of £800 million which took effect last August through the Electricity Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Order 1971. The exhaustion of these powers is
1196
also in sight, however, and new powers are required in the present Session. The new borrowing limits provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill are based on estimates of capital requirements and internal financing submitted by the Electricity Council and the Scottish Boards. These estimates cover the period up to the end of March, 1978. Your Lordships will appreciate that in looking so far ahead there are bound to be uncertainties about the growth of demand for electricity, and about the longer-term forecast of costs and prices: uncertainties, that is, about capital requirements and the internal resources that will be available to meet them. The estimates of borrowing requirements can therefore be only tentative. The aim, however, is to provide for the legitimate borrowing requirements of the industry over the next few years. We are of course dealing with very large capital programmes. Over the seven years from April, 1971, to March, 1978, these are expected to average about £700 million a year for the Electricity Council and Boards and more than £100 million a year for the Scottish Boards. This investment is necessary to meet the future industrial, domestic and other requirements of the country for electricity.
Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to pay out of public funds to the Electricity Council or any Electricity Board contributions towards the expenses of the capital projects which they are bringing forward. This provision was foreshadowed by the Government's announcement last November, that the nationalised industries, at the Government's request, were making arrangements to bring forward about £100 million-worth of capital expenditure into the years 1972/73 and 1973/74 as part of the measures to promote employment, and that in some cases there would be special payments to these industries in respect of expenses incurred. It is the Government's view that the extra costs consequent upon the acceleration of expenditure should fall upon the community as a whole rather than on the industry's consumers alone.
Of the £100 million-worth of expenditure brought forward, about £60 million is attributable to the Electricity Boards, and Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the Secretary of State, with Treasury

1197
approval, to contribute up to £25 million to the expenses involved. This sum has been designed to cover all the projects now being considered and also allows for the possibility of the acceleration of some other small projects. The amount of compensation paid will depend on the extent to which the projects have been brought forward, in addition to the amount of capital expenditure involved. The contributions to be made by the Secretary of State will relate to additional interest charges and other expenses involved in advancing expenditure. The projects being brought forward include one major project: the construction of Ince B power station. It is not possible to estimate the full effect of these measures in creating employment. Their indirect effects will be spread fairly widely through the economy, by means of sub-contracts, capital work of contractors and sub-contractors and so on, and are difficult to assess. But rough estimates—and these must necessarily be rough—have been provided for some of the projects concerned, and these suggest that the projects being advanced by the Electricity Boards should create jobs for at least 5,000 in 1972–73.
Clause 3 extends the powers of the Secretary of State to transfer property between Electricity Boards. The transfer of property between Boards is necessary from time to time in the process of technical reorganisation; for example, the transfer of the 132Kv transmission network from the Central Electricity Generating Board to the various Area Boards. Financial responsibility for this network has already been transferred to the Area Boards with effect from April 1, 1969, but because of the legal complexities it has not been possible to transfer the assets. The C.E.G.B. has retained ownership, though Area Boards have responsibility for the network. The transfer of the various property rights, including wayleaves, some of which were compulsorily acquired, is a matter of considerable legal complexity and could best be effected by an order or orders made under Section 19 of the 1947 Act. However, in its present form the powers of this section would not be adequate. The amendment has been sought by the Electricity Council and Boards in England and Wales. At the same time, the Scottish Boards have asked that it should cover Scotland as well, although
1198
no immediate reorganisation is under consideration in Scotland. The clause is not concerned with the general organisation or reorganisation of the industry. The Government have no intention of reorganising the structure of the electricity industry in the immediate future. With that explanation, I trust that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Ferrers.)

RHODESIA: MR. SMITH'S REFUSAL OF ALL-PARTY VISIT
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, although I much regret interrupting a debate, perhaps it would be the wish of the House to give me leave to repeat now a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"I said that I would report further to the House on the possibility of an all-Party delegation visiting Rhodesia".
"Mr. Smith has finally replied that he would feel unable to agree to the visit of the delegation proposed. He gives as his reason not only the strongly expressed opposition to the settlement of certain members of the proposed delegation, but also their alleged support for movements in Africa which make use of terrorist methods.
"Since both the Labour and Liberal Parties have stated that they are not prepared to change their nominations to the all-Party delegation, a position which I quite understand, I regret that there is now no point in pursuing the proposal further."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement, may I ask her whether it would not have been better if Her Majesty's Government had expressed

1199
some feeling of regret at this gross act of discourtesy to the Parliament of this country? Noble Lords will agree that it is quite unprecedented for any country to refuse a Parliamentary Delegation. Further, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she can give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will uphold the rights of Members of both Houses of Parliament to carry out their legitimate pursuits in all countries, and particularly in a country which is seeking recognition from this Government while in rebellion against the Crown? With regard to the alleged support for terrorist methods, we know that Mr. Smith has many times said that the Labour Party has had resolutions at its annual conference supporting terrorist movements in Rhodesia. Would the noble Baroness confirm what has been pointed out in both Houses of Parliament, that this is completely untrue? My Lords, does this not show that the Smith Government is totally uninterested in the truth, and seeks to invalidate the work of the Pearce Commission since it is probably going to bring back an answer which Smith did not expect?
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement. I will limit my comments to the references to the Liberal Party, of which I have the honour to be a member. Would the noble Baroness agree that there are some completely false assumptions in this reply from Mr. Smith? Is she aware that neither Mr. Steel nor any other Liberal Member of Parliament who might have been nominated supports the use of terrorist methods, any more than they support the repressive methods and shockingly illiberal actions of the illegal régime? There is one other assumption which perhaps the noble Baroness can correct. It appears to be assumed from this reply from Mr. Smith that the Conservatives, on their part, would have been willing to make or change nominations merely to satisfy Mr. Smith. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give us some assurance that that assumption is ill-founded.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, first of all to the noble Baroness, I would say that perhaps
1200
she will recall that the Statement specifically said:
"… I regret that there is now no point in pursuing…"
and obviously we must all of us regret that an all-Party Delegation from either another place or both Houses cannot in fact be received. In answer to the question raised by the noble Baroness as to whether we would do our best to try to ensure that Members of both Houses could go about their legitimate business and observe what is happening in Rhodesia, she will of course recall that three Members of another place have in fact gone—the Member for Surbiton, the Member for West Bromwich and the Member for York.
The noble Baroness then asked whether these allegations were not quite untrue. I could not possibly comment on what resolutions have been passed or have not been passed by political Parties in this country, but I would say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State conveyed very firmly to Mr. Smith that undertakings were given by all the members of the delegation that they would not work either for or against a settlement while they were in Rhodesia. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I would say that the Conservative members of the delegation were never named, and therefore there was no question of changing them.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am afraid that I must press the noble Baroness a little further. With regard to the word "regret", the Statement says:
"Since both the Labour and Liberal Parties have stated that they are not prepared to change their nominations … I regret that there is now no point in pursuing the proposal further".
Would the noble Baroness have wished them to have changed the nominations at the wish of Mr. Smith's Government?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think that if the noble Baroness has time to look at the Statement more closely she will observe that just before the words, "I regret", it says, "a position which I quite understand". In other words, this confirms that Her Majesty's Government do not expect the Members of the Labour Party in another place to change their

1201
delegation. It is a position which is perfectly understood, and that is why my right honourable friend said,
"I regret that there is now no point in pursuing the proposal further".
LORD BROWN: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the form of words used by the Foreign Secretary in this Statement give the impression, if they do not in fact actually support the idea, that the Foreign Secretary has accepted the logic of Mr. Smith's arguments against accepting this all-Party Delegation? Would it not have been possible for him to say something in such an important Statement to make it clear that he himself felt that Mr. Smith was taking up at least a totally illogical position?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the great difficulty in this case, as I am sure the House as a whole is aware, is that, however much all of us may regret it, the Rhodesians have had the right of control of access to their country since 1923.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, should not the noble Baroness in one sense welcome rather than regret what has happened, since it shows Mr. Smith up in his true colours?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords, I certainly do not welcome it, because we hope that the Pearce Commission will continue their task.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I regret having to disagree with the noble Baroness, who is so pleasant and, I am quite sure, believes entirely that what she says is the truth. But is the noble Baroness aware that those of us who were on the "Fearless"—and I was one of the people present and took part in the negotiation—knew within our hearts that there was no possibility of coming to an open, democratic agreement with this (and I use the word) gentleman, Mr. Smith? Consequently, I repeat the end of the speech that I made when the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, went to Rhodesia. I said that the Foreign Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, had been taken for a ride. Why should this great Government be taken for a ride?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I hesitated to
1202
interrupt the noble Lord, but it would assist me greatly if he could couch his remarks in the form of a question, because it would make it easier for me to remember what it is he wishes me to say. I should be most grateful if he would say it again.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I do not want to repeat it. I only wanted to ask whether the noble Baroness was aware that her Government have been taken for a ride.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I would say briefly that I am not at all aware of this fact. It is entirely up to the Pearce Commission to decide whether they have the conditions in which they can fulfil their work, and up till now they have said that they have.

ELECTRICITY BILL
4.8 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, we now return to the Electricity Bill. I wish to say straightaway that we welcome this Bill. We are grateful to the noble Earl for the careful explanation he has given us and for some additional information which he has made available tentatively—I understand the reason for that very well. Nevertheless, we feel that there are matters in the Bill which require fairly careful scrutiny. There is no problem in this case of differing philosophical approaches. Indeed, there is no great philosophy in the Bill. It deals with nuts and bolts—rather big ones, rather expensive ones; but nevertheless with machinery, as opposed to any new principle. Therefore, I turn, as the noble Earl did himself, to the respective clauses, and I shall ask one or two questions on them.
The first clause deals with borrowing, and we understand the reasons for increasing the borrowing powers. But the noble Earl did not say anything about the recent coal strike, which has undoubtedly affected the earnings and the profits, or probably the losses, of the Electricity Boards. Could the noble Earl, in replying to this debate, give us information, if any is yet available, as to the likely additional cost falling on the

1203
electricity supply industry as a result of the interruption caused by the coal strike; and can he say whether the borrowing he is proposing is affected by that in any way? I assume that the figures of borrowing are so large that they are not likely to be affected, and that the only result would be that the Government might have to come to the House earlier than otherwise anticipated. Nevertheless, I should like to give him the opportunity of supplying this valuable piece of information.
Then the noble Earl referred, properly I thought, to the way in which prices had been artificially kept down. He referred to 'the C.B.I. arrangement which had been acceded to by the electricity supply industry. That, as he made clear, will undoubtedly have meant that income which would otherwise have been earned has not been earned. I want to pursue this matter a little because I am interested in knowing where the cost of artificially keeping down the prices is ultimately going to fall. It can fall either on the general body of taxpayers by the process of Government subsidising in one way or another or on the existing consumers. I think that all electricity consumers would like to know whether or not the method of keeping down prices artificially is merely a method of postponing an increase in the price.
Your Lordships will immediately appreciate that if the present system continues under which a target of profit has to be achieved by the industry, and that target has to be irrespective of additional small borrowing. then the additional sums which have been borrowed as a result of the artificial keeping down of the prices are merely going to fall on the consumer, albeit at a later date. So the question I am putting to the noble Earl is a simple one. What, according to the arrangements which are prevailing. is happening about the additional cost of keeping down the prices? Are those prices merely being kept down temporarily or is the benefit of that reduction in price an all-time benefit?
Next, I should like to turn to Clause 2 which provides for a subsidy of up to £25 million. The noble Earl made it clear that this was a fair compensation for accelerating, work to the tune of £60 million. I should be grateful if your
1204
Lordships would compare those two figures. What the Government are doing—and they are not the first Government to do it—is bringing forward work to provide additional employment. The amount of work brought forward is worth about £60 million and the additional cost involved in that bringing forward is £25 million. That is a very large proportion. It presumably means that this work, which would have cost £60 million if it had taken place in the normal way at the normal time, will now cost £85 million. That is a very large increase. Of course, it could mean that work which would have cost £35 million will now cost £60 million; and that is an even higher proportion. So I am being generous in assuming the first calculation to be the more accurate one. In either event it is a very high proportion, and what it is doing is providing, in what I hope I may truthfully, but possibly optimistically, call the relevant period of 1972–73, an additional 5,000 jobs. So there is to be £25 million additional cost, wasted cost, to produce 5,000 jobs in the relevant period.
We are all anxious that where circumstances of unemployment at the rate which we have achieved have arisen, where those tragic circumstances apply. methods should be adopted of alleviating them as far as one can; but it is to be considered whether this is an appropriate method, and whether it is not such an expensive method that other methods ought not to have been used in its place. This is not an unemployment debate and I cannot go into all the alternatives, but many have been put forward. I am asking: within the principle of providing work at some additional cost. is this a good bargain, is it value for money? Is it worth doing in comparison with other methods?—and I am speaking of £25 million on £60 million worth of work to provide 5,000 jobs only in the relevant period. Of course, it will provide additional jobs a year later; although I hope that the pressure for additional jobs a year later will not be so great. I hope that the Government are not contemplating one million unemployed in 18 months' time. So that is the question I am putting to the noble Earl about the £25 million and whether the Government have exercised their judgment wisely in spending that amount in this way as opposed to

1205
another way in order to achieve additional employment.
The Bill refers in Clause 3 to transfers between Electricity Boards. I note the noble Earl's statement, although it was hedged about a little, that the Government have no intention of restructuring this industry in the immediate future; that in that period they are not proposing to pull it out by the roots to see how it is growing. But I consider that that statement was not sufficient in itself and certainly not sufficient in relation to a similar statement made by the noble Earl's colleague in another place. I am still assuming, although this assumption has been challenged many times in the short period I have been in this House, that it is not surprising for Government Ministers to speak with the same voice in the two Houses. I am referring to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Development at the Scottish Office, the hon. George Younger, in the debate on this Bill on February 1, in the other place, when he said:
" … we do not have any proposals in hand just now for any major reorganisation of the electricity industry. I wish to make this clear because we do not want those concerned to feel that they are operating in an atmosphere of uncertainty…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 379.]
That is fine.
I now go on to the following sentence:
"The hon. Gentleman then asked about hiving off. I wish to make it clear that the consideration of whether, and to what extent, parts of the industry can be hived off is still very much under way and that no decisions have been made at this time."—[col. 380.]
I do not know how much satisfaction those who have the duty of operating this industry can draw from that statement. The Government have made it as plain as a pikestaff that those operating the industry need to act with certainty, and need to have the cloud of uncertainty removed from them so that they may make sensible decisions regarding the future. But with this bad habit of considering hiving-off proposals wherever they can in regard to nationalised industries, the Government have not been prepared to make that clear statement. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will widen the statement he has just made to include a similar comment about hiving-off.
Precisely the same principle disturbs management and creates inefficiency as
1206
underlies the uncertainty about major reorganisation. It is exactly the point, and I hope the Government will soon learn their lesson. The lesson I refer to is, of course, that taught by the coal strike, which started off when a Bill just like this came before your Lordships' House, and under which parts of the whole industry were hived-off, much against the wishes of those running the Coal Board and much against the acceptance of the then Chairman of the Coal Board. I refer to a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, who refused to continue his appointment. The result was dissatisfaction and a lack of confidence among the miners. They knew that the Government were "going for" their industry and that their representative, in the sense that he was the Chairman of the industry, was leaving the industry and was therefore no longer present to protect them.
A train of events followed which led to a greater distance between Government, the industry and the miners. It resulted in the absence of a chairman who could stand up to Government bullying as we all know that the noble Lord, Lord Robens, could do very well. It enabled a chairman to say two things that I doubt very much whether the noble Lord, Lord Robens, could ever have been persuaded to say: first, that lie could not possibly afford another farthing—and we can see how much that has cost—and also to say that as the offer made by the Board had not been accepted it was withdrawn, and that those negotiating would have to start again from the bottom. That infuriated the miners, their union and their negotiators. I am saying that the costly trouble which resulted in the loss of electrical supplies, and which has had its effect on this very Bill, started with a provision to hive-off part of the coal industry and it had a material effect on the attitude of the miners and the chain of events which caused this disaster.
It is to be hoped that the Government have no intention of carrying on with this dogmatic approach to every nationalised industry, including the electricity supply industry which has been praised by most Members of the Government for the way it handled matters during the coal strike. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to make absolutely clear

1207
that those charged with the responsibility of running all the parts of their industry may go ahead with a clear conscience and with the same keen endeavour that one would expect to find in all kinds of industry, public or private.
Finally, my Lords, I would turn to the larger question of the choice of fuels. The noble Earl did not say anything about that. I wonder whether he is in a position to say whether the Government have reached a conclusion on that all-important question. In the meantime it is right to maintain flexibility. We have all seen how forecasts have been belied and how impossible it is to be sure of the future. I understand that at present some three-quarters of the electricity generated comes from coal. That may sound a high figure, but such information as I have from those connected with coal and with other forms of energy supply indicates that they take the view that it is none too high a figure and that in twenty years' time we shall be leaning more on coal than we do to-day. That, my Lords, is one of the many subjects about which my ignorance is profound, but I think it is a subject about which we must know more. As the Government are coming forward for these very large sums, they should let us know whether they have reached any conclusion on this very difficult and baffling question of the choice of fuels.
I hope that the noble Earl can give a clear affirmative on this question. When comparing the cost of the different fuels will the Government take fully into account the anti-pollution costs? We all know that when we are dealing with different fuels inevitably there is a pollution element. We all know that we are moving to a period when that pollution element will have to be removed, or reduced, at some additional cost. There is no longer any need, therefore, to omit that calculation, and the cost should be included. No proper comparison will be achieved unless the anti-pollution costs are included in all comparable cases. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to deal with that question, and the other questions which I have put to him. I have made clear that we thank him for giving us the information, and that we shall do our best to expedite the passage of the Bill.
4.28 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I intervene, very briefly? I wish to ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, a couple of additional questions which I hope he may be able to answer. We have been waiting a very long time for the Vinter Committee to report. This has caused a state of uncertainty among those working in nuclear industry about what type of reactor will be chosen for the next generation. Is it the intention to proceed with the advanced gas-cooled reactors which are the mainstay of the existing programme or should we change over to the steam generating heavy water reactors, as the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and others have recommended, partly on the ground that there may be a very good export market for this particular type of reactor? Or should we move as fast as we can to developing the sodium-cooled fast breeder, of which I believe the prototype comes into operation next year? Until these questions are resolved it seems to me very difficult to undertake with any degree of precision to say what the capital expenditure of the Electricity Council and the Boards is likely to be in the time-scale with which we are concerned in this Bill.
As I understand from the noble Earl, we are going to 1978, and the orders for power stations coming into operation in that year would not normally be placed until late 1973, or even early 1974. So the decision of the Vinter Committee and the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was discussing, about what is to be the basis of our fuel policy in 1978, raise an extremely important matter. I do not think it is good enough to pass this over by saying that in a Bill of this kind the uncertainties are so great that they are covered by the limits that we have chosen. Ideally one would like to have a new edition of the 1967 White Paper so that we may see what contribution is to be made by each of the four fuels to the energy economy of this country eight year ahead, as was done at that time.
When the 1967 White Paper was issued we were talking about the contribution to be made by gas, coal, oil and nuclear energy in 1975. Similarly, at the time when we produce a Bill of this kind, which talks about the expenditure of thousands of millions of pounds, I think we should

1209
have some idea of the relative proportions of fuels which are going to contribute to make up the energy economy generally, and in the case of the electricity supply, in particular, in 1978. It was asserted in the other place that the decision on Ince B was not to be taken as committing the Central Electricity Generating Board to any particular policy in the future. It just happens that it is one of the projects to be brought forward as a result of the need to create employment.
I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said. It seems to me to be a very expensive way of doing this. I listened carefully to the figures quoted by the noble Lord, and I did a little division. The £25 million which has been allocated under Clause 2 to create 5,000 jobs means that each of these jobs will cost £5,000 to create. I am not aware that the workers in the electricity supply industry are paid £5,000.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord is doing me a great courtesy by supporting me in these figures. Perhaps he will forgive me for saying that I think the position is even worse than that, because the £25 million is only the wasted element. The full cost of providing the jobs is probably three or four times as much as that.
LORD AVEBURY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing that out, because the £25 million in fact relates to capital expenditure brought forward in the case of the Boards, as I understand it, of £60 million. Am I correct in saying that there is another £40 million on top of that for the Electricity Council itself? That is how I understood the noble Earl's explanation, but perhaps he will say a few more words on that when he comes to reply.
The final question that I want to put to the noble Earl is this. Can he say what rate of growth of electricity demand and of maximum simultaneous demand these capital expenditure figures represent? For a long time—I think almost 15 years—if the maximum simultaneous demand on the C.E.G.B. system was plotted on logarithmic paper it fell on to a beautiful straight line—8·6 per cent. per annum growth. Then at the beginning of the 'sixties it slackened off. Argument continues among the technological forecasters
1210
as to whether we shall ever return to that growth rate again. Certainly we have not done so in the last few years. This has an effect on the manufacturers who supply turbines, generating equipment and so on. They are unable to depend on a regular programme of work, and this increases the costs of the electricity industry, because they have to carry additional overheads which manufacturers incur in periods of slack. Of course, as the noble Earl will be aware, a thorough investigation of this was undertaken under the previous Government which said that, so far as possible, steps should be taken to even out the flow of orders by the C.E.G.B. and the Scottish Boards. This is why the question that I am putting to the noble Earl is an important one. If manufacturers know what the rate of growth of maximum demand is going to be, this tells them how much plant is going to be ordered. They can then arrange their manufacturing capacities to suit, and the Electricity Boards will get a better deal from their suppliers.
4.34 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have spoken, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for saying that there was no difference in basic philosophy, because of course this is a Bill merely enabling the Electricity Boards to have their borrowing powers increased. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked what was the effect of the coal strike on the Electricity Boards. I think he will understand if I say that these are very early days. It would be difficult to say precisely what the effect in cash terms has been upon the Electricity Boards; and no decisions have been taken on coal prices following the strike. The implications of the coal strike on the finances of the electricity industry cannot yet be determined, as I am sure the noble Lord will realise.
The noble Lord also referred to the fact that, because electricity prices had been kept down, this was in fact preventing the Boards from obtaining a higher revenue, and therefore from making a higher profit, or less of a loss, than otherwise they would have done. Of course the electricity industry has been a most profitable industry until recently. It was as a direct result of

1211
policy, in order to try to keep down the rate of inflation—upon which electricity has a great effect—that the Boards did not increase their prices as much as they would otherwise have done. But the noble Lord will realise that this price restraint was also shown by a number of other industries, not least of which was the Coal Board. When the noble Lord asks what would be the difference had they been allowed to increase their prices, again it is difficult to say because the assumption would be that the Coal Board would have increased their prices as well, and therefore the cost to the Electricity Boards would have been correspondingly higher had there been no restraint on prices.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, were concerned about the figure of £25 million and how it is arrived at in view of the £60 million worth of projects being brought forward. The limit of £25 million allowed in the Bill has been set to cover all proposals likely to be approved, with a margin for unforeseen contingencies. I think it can be reasonably said that the Ince B project and the associated work that goes with it does extend over a five-year period, and it is of course the biggest single project which is being brought forward. As I explained to the House in my original speech, the object of the £25 million is to reimburse the Electricity Boards or the Electricity Council to the extent of the interest required for bringing the projects forward; and the fact that the Ince B project will be brought forward and will extend over a period of five years will account for the largest proportion of the sum of £25 million.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to interrupt. This is an important issue and it is something that we may have to come back to in more detail. Meantime, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is the case that, although the Ince B project is being brought forward and will take five years, it is not being brought forward five years.
LORD AVEBURY: Only one year.
LORD DIAMOND: Exactly. So the additional employment about which we are talking at a cost of £25 million is
1212
perhaps from one year's to eighteen months' employment. I want the noble Earl to be good enough to consider whether there is not a better and less expensive way of creating additional employment.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. As usual, with his clinical accuracy he has put his finger on a very germane point. The Ince B project is in fact being brought forward some eighteen months and, as I said, it accounts for the largest proportion of the money that is being spent. But it does not account for the whole of the £25 million.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, we can return to this point on the Committee stage, but perhaps the noble Earl will let us have a note of the calculations before that stage is reached.
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly do my best to see that noble Lords have the facts they require. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the choice of energy and of fuel. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned, the Vinter Committee has been studying this problem and is due to report shortly. It would therefore be imprudent of me to anticipate what this Report is likely to say; indeed it would he imprudent for the Government to anticipate any long-term position until the Report has been received and considered. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, recognised, any energy policy has to be flexible and must be considered as a whole; and the choice of the type of power stations to be built in the future depends on taking a long-term view, not only on operating costs but also on the anticipated performance and construction costs. There are very long-term social, economic, engineering and pollution aspects to be taken into account. These the noble Lord has raised again, as he did on an earlier Bill. I can assure him that these aspects will be considered.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will not wish me to go into too much detail over the long-term fuel requirements and the way in which these will be split up between various methods, because this depends very much on the

1213
Report of the Vinter Committee, and indeed on the decision as to the type of nuclear fuels which should be used in those power stations which will be powered in the future by nuclear fuels. I trust that your Lordships will agree that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.42 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. First of all, on behalf of solicitors I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the Statement he made as to his action under the Courts Bill. I am very sorry that I was not in my place when he made it. I should like to have been here to thank him for the way he gave effect to the Amendments I moved when the Bill was in Committee. I am tempted to say that my absence was per incuriam, but those words have received such intensive consideration by the Judicial Committee of your Lordshops' House in the last few days that perhaps I ought to avoid the phrase altogether. Secondly, I should like to say, again by way of thanks, that I am very grateful to the Government for having made the services of Treasury Counsel available to me on the drafting of this Bill. I also thank them for the skill and assiduity with which they have applied themselves to the task.
The third and last preliminary observation I should like to make relates to the form of the Bill. It could have been cast in a somewhat similar form particularly so far as the Schedules are concerned, but the object has been to put the legislation, when this Bill has been passed, in a shape which is convenient for consolidation. I think it is time that the Solicitors Acts were consolidated, and that accounts for the form of this Bill and particularly of its Schedules. We were proceeding by way of re-enacting, subject to Amendments, which is always a bit complicated. You might call this Bill "The Solicitors (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill", and it is notoriously difficult to deal with such a Bill on Second Reading. In fact I
1214
really do not know how one deals with so many different subjects in a connected fashion. However, I should like to refer to the principal provisions in the Bill, to explain them and to justify them if I can; and if I leave out anything that any noble Lord thinks ought to have been explained or dealt with I will endeavour to do this at a later stage.
With those preliminary observations, I come to Part I of the Bill and Clause 1. The effect of this clause will make it unnecessary in future for a solicitor to be a British subject. There are two reasons for this. The first is that it is already becoming a little difficult to find out who is technically a British subject and who is not, having regard to the great changes that are taking place in the Commonwealth. In the days of William III of course it was very easy indeed to distinguish between a British subject and a "Hanover rat". It is not quite so simple as that to-day; and when we come to consider the Treaty of Rome the problem will he greater. I have to try to please noble Lords on every side of the House to-day, and therefore I suggest that I ought to say to those on the Government or Liberal Benches "when the Treaty of Rome becomes binding in this country"—and to other Peers perhaps I ought to say "if". I think that would be a tactful thing to say. But when or if we have to deal with the Treaty of Rome it is quite obvious that we may have to consider the admission to the Roll of people who are not British subjects; that is inherent in the Treaty and in particular in those Articles which deal with the right of settlement. Of course, anybody coming from abroad who wishes to become a member of the Bar or a solicitor will have to subject himself to the full training necessary for that purpose. But subject to that there seems to be no particular reason why a solicitor should necessarily be a British subject. The reason why he has to be, under the Act of Settlement, is that as an officer of the court he holds an office of trust within the meaning of the Act. But I trust that your Lordships will think this is not a thing which we need necessarily bring into discussion to-day.
Clause 2 is fairly obvious, I think. At the present time the Law Society, before it accepts an articled clerk and again before a solicitor is admitted, has to consider whether the candidate has the moral

1215
fitness to be an officer of the court. That is a very difficult phrase to apply. I do not know that it is very easy to find any other form of words, but it is proposed rather to widen the inquiry and to say that the test shall be the character and his fitness and suitability to be a solicitor. I do not think I need particularly labour that point.
When we come to Clause 3 we are dealing with a purely administrative matter. At the present time if a solicitor wants to take his name off the Roll, to become a barrister or for some other reason, he has to apply to the Disciplinary Committee who alone can strike him off. This has nothing to do with the disciplinary proceedings at all. The proposal in this clause is that the Law Society itself shall be able to take this action without having to refer it to the Disciplinary Committee. The concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, is needed because there can always be an appeal if the Law Society does or does not do what the solicitor wants.
When we come to Clause 4 we are dealing with what is primarily a domestic matter; that is to say, the amount the Law Society may charge for issuing the practising certificate which all solicitors require. We are proposing that the statutory limit of £20 should be omitted (inflation is hitting the costs of the Law Society as it is hitting everything else); but we also propose to retain the protection which exists at present, that the amount must be approved by the Master of the Rolls, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.
Next we come to Part II of the Bill, and here we are dealing with the Schedules. The Schedules are really designed to protect clients; they are not for the protection of the solicitors at all. The Schedules are mainly the old Schedules amended and revised in certain respects, and they are brought into effect by Clause 5. I do not think I need say very much about them; they are mainly a repetition of the existing law. Clause 6 enables the Law Society to take over quickly the papers of a solicitor who has been practising on his own and has died. I am afraid that solicitors are not
1216
always as careful as they should be in arranging their own affairs—sometimes they are too busy in arranging their clients' affairs to consider their own. It may well be that the solicitor appoints executors who are not solicitors and who have no idea of what to do about the practice. In such cases the Law Society seeks power to take charge of the situation. That is wholly for the benefit of the clients.
In Clause 7 we deal with a situation which is rather awkward in practice. It is absolutely cardinal that no solicitor, or his partner, should practise before another solicitor, or his partner, who is a justice of the peace in a particular area. It sometimes happens that solicitors who are justices of the peace in one particular area are called upon to serve from time to time in other courts, and even, in certain circumstances, in the Crown Courts set up by the recent Act. We think the right course to take there is to distinguish between the court in which the solicitor usually sits and the court in which he may occasionally sit. With the first type of court we retain the existing prohibition; with the second type of court we prohibit the solicitor from sitting. In that way the principle that I have indicated is preserved.
Clauses 8 and 9 contain the provisions about the Disciplinary Committee, and we propose that the name be changed from the "Disciplinary Committee" to the "Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal". The reason is that at the present time there is a certain amount of confusion in the lay mind between the Law Society and the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee is not a committee of the Law Society; it is a committee appointed by the Master of the Rolls from among past or present members of the Council of the Law Society; but they are quite different bodies and the Law Society acts, as one might say, as prosecutor before the Disciplinary Committee. We think it would be desirable to change the name to the "Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal", to draw the clear distinction between its functions and the functions of a committee of the Law Society. At the same time we seek to enlarge the powers of the Master of the Rolls as to who may be appointed to the Disciplinary Tribunal. We think that it

1217
is undesirable to emphasise the connection between the Law Society by retaining the provision that the Master of the Rolls may appoint only past or present members of the Council, and we consider that it should be thrown much more widely open to any solicitor of 10 years' standing.
Clause 10 deals with a purely technical point. At the moment the position is that the Disciplinary Committee is required by law to state the facts of a case before giving its decision. That means there is a good deal of drafting to be done before a decision can be made known. It is highly desirable that the decision should be made known immediately, if possible, and the drafting done afterwards. For that reason it is suggested that it would be much more convenient not to require the facts to be stated before any decision is announced, but to give power to the Committee—the Tribunal, as it will be—to announce the decision and then draft the full statement of facts and reasons afterwards.
Now we come to the provisions in Part III with regard to the Compensation Fund. I ought to remind your Lordships that the Compensation Fund is a great work undertaken by the whole of the solicitors' profession on behalf of the very small number of people who suffer as a result of the dishonesty of solicitors. Such cases are very rare, but they unfortunately exist. The principle of the Compensation Fund is that the whole profession stands behind every solicitor, so that any client who suffers from dishonesty can make a claim on the Compensation Fund. We call it the Compensation Fund because that is what it is; but ever since it started it has operated as an indemnity fund. We do not dare call it that yet, but that is what it has been in the past, and in this sense no admitted claim has yet been rejected by the fund. It is a very tiny proportion of people who suffer, but there it is. I took power in the 1965 Bill, which I had the honour to take charge of in your Lordships' House, to raise the maximum levy which could be made on the profession to £50 in any particular year. I am thankful to say we have never had so far to exercise that power.
There are one or two provisions here to which I think I ought to draw attention. The first is that under the present
1218
law if you are an unfortunate client you have to prove actual loss before you can make a claim on the Fund. We propose to alter that to empower the Fund to make payment if it is satisfied that the client is likely to suffer loss. That is a very important provision from the point of view of the client, because as a rule these matters take a long time to work out and settle; and if a grant could be made to a client who is likely to suffer loss it might relieve a great deal of hardship which would otherwise be suffered through the inevitable delay. Another interesting provision of this clause relates to cases where the innocent partner of a guilty solicitor has had nothing whatever to do with the dishonesty of his partner—and this often happens because sometimes, unfortunately, the dishonest partner goes to great lengths to conceal from his other partners what he has been doing. We are taking power in this clause—and I think it is a very wise provision; I hope your Lordships will agree—so that not only can a grant be made to a client but a grant or a loan, as the case may be, can be made to the innocent solicitor in order to enable him to make reparation to the client; because, of course, clients are entitled to look to all the partners—they are jointly and severally liable—and this is a different method of awarding compensation to clients. It makes good sense, I think your Lordships will agree, to enable the innocent solicitors to make reparation themselves. I think that is all I need trouble your Lordships with in regard to the Compensation Fund.
When we come to Part IV, Clause 12, we find there is a curious quirk in the law to-day. If a solicitor and a client make an agreement in contentious matters about what the costs shall be, it may very well be that the client does not want to challenge all of the bill; he may not want to challenge any of it; but before the solicitor can sue on it the bill has to go before the taxing master and the taxing master has to consider on behalf of the court whether this was a reasonable agreement to be made. The effect of this clause is that if the client does not want to challenge the bill, or wants to challenge only part of it—shall we say, the disbursements or part of the costs, and not other parts of the bill—then he can go to the court and have that

1219
limited right of challenge. Of course, we retain the existing protection for clients under a disability, such as infants and so forth.
Clause 10 deals with a purely techcality about the time within which certain applications must be made, and is designed to meet the criticisms in the particular case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross, when he was Mr. Justice Cross, in 1961. Clause 14 deals with a curious point under contentious business in the county court. At the moment there is a distinction in the county court, as indeed there is in the High Court between party and party and solicitor and client costs; that is to say, between the costs which can be awarded against an unsuccessful party and the costs which can be awarded as between a solicitor and his own client. As it stands at the moment there is no discretion in a county court case to depart from the party and party taxation, whereas in the High Court, which of course has jurisdiction which overlaps very much with the county court, there is power, if the taxing authorities in the county court think fit, to draw a distinction between party and party and solicitor and client costs. That is, as I submit, a perfectly reasonable provision.
Clause 15 deals with quite a different matter. As it stands at the moment, a solicitor cannot become a commissioner for oaths without being separately enrolled, separately appointed by the Lord Chancellor. This gives a great deal of extra work to the Lord Chancellor's Department and to the Law Society for the purpose of keeping the Register and getting these appointments made, and so forth. It is suggested that all solicitors should automatically be commissioners for oaths—which most people seem to think they are, but in practice they are not. We of course preserve the right to the Lord Chancellor to appoint anybody other than a solicitor to be a commissioner for oaths, as is occasionally done at the present time.
Clause 16 is a rather technical clause but I think I ought to say a word on it. It relates to termination of a retainer of a solicitor. At the moment, a solicitor is not entitled to throw out a case unless his client refuses to put him in funds to meet disbursements. The object of
1220
this clause is to enable the solicitor to make a reasonable demand on account of his actual costs. It is quite unreasonable to expect a solicitor to go on acting for a client when he has no prospect of being paid. So the object of this clause is to put disbursements and costs on the same footing so far as that is concerned.
The rest of the Bill I do not think I need comment on at all. The Schedules are amended, but for the most part they apply the existing law with only procedural changes. If any noble Lord wishes me to deal further with that, I shall have an opportunity of doing so. However, there is just one point I ought to mention. It is supremely unimportant but it raises a point where I am asking your Lordships to depart from a decision which you came to on the 1965 Bill. It arises on paragraph 6 of Schedule 1. There we have this odd situation to-day that this notice which has to be served under paragraph 5 must be served—this is quoting from the existing law
"Within eight days … or within a further six days thereafter".
They are rather like the days of grace in an insurance policy. It arose in this way. A manuscript Amendment was put in at the last moment in another place; we had reached practically the end of the Session and I humbly advised your Lordships to accept the Commons Amendments, including this curious Amendment, on which I ask your Lordships to have second thoughts and to correct to-day.
My Lords, I think that is all I need trouble your Lordships with concerning this Bill. I have tried to deal with it in as general terms as I can, and if any noble Lord thinks that I have left anything out which ought to have been included in my statement I will try to take the opportunity of remedying that defect either to-day or at some later stage. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Tangley.)
5.10 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, may I also at the outset make one or two preliminary observations, the first of which is that I should like to express my gratitude to the Law Society for placing at my disposal written material which enormously facilitated my task in studying this extremely important and technical

1221
Bill. I am most grateful to them and I can assure them that I have made full use of it.
May I next say to the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, who has introduced this measure, that I think he has discharged, and is in the process of discharging, a really valuable service, not only, as I am sure members of the profession would readily agree, to the profession of solicitors but to the public at large. That profession is one on which the public tremendously relies. It is an important public interest that it should be well conducted, well organised and fully manned. It is a profession which has, and has always had, an extremely high standard of honour, of which it is justly proud and which it must maintain in order to deserve and enjoy, as it does enjoy, the complete confidence of the many members of the public who have to have recourse to it in order to vindicate their rights and secure protection in the eye of the law.
The noble Lord, in what, if he will allow me to say so, was a most admirable explanation of this Bill, described it as being in effect a miscellaneous provisions Bill. I should think it obviously was so. It is one which is extremely difficult, as he said, to discuss on Second Reading because it comprehends such a number of diverse matters of great import to the profession, and perhaps the importance of which is much more easily understood by practising solicitors who have come into contact with the matters with which the Bill deals, than members of the general public would find it easy to evaluate. The noble Lord managed to make his address not only interesting but, if he will allow me to say so, easy and agreeable to listen to, which is a remarkable achievement in the case of such a very technical Bill.
My Lords, looking at the Bill as it were from the outside, what I should think might well strike one is particularly Clause 5 and Schedule 1, for this reason. In that clause and in that Schedule, if this Bill passes into law (as I hope it will) the Law Society is given extremely drastic powers to deal with the very occasional delinquent solicitor who is dishonest in his conduct of the affairs of a client or of a trust. They are drastic powers and at first sight they seem to be extremely severe. I think the public will be grateful to the profession for being
1222
ready to ask for, and to take upon itself, such very drastic powers for the purpose, after all, of protecting members of the public who have the misfortune of coming into contact with the very rare solicitor who for one reason or another departs from his strict sense of duty to his client. I have examined the powers and I would not venture to submit to your Lordships that they are too severe. Severe they are, but as I have said we should be grateful to the profession for having armed themselves in this way, and I personally would not criticise them as going beyond what is reasonable in any particular instance. I should like to return to that aspect of the matter a little later when I have dealt with some of the individual matters to which the Bill has reference.
If I may, my Lords, I will follow the plan of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, in going through the clauses one by one, pausing at those which seem to involve some topic of rather general application. I will start with Clause 1, to which the noble Lord referred, and that clause enables non-British subjects to become solicitors. The noble Lord explained the two reasons which in particular had actuated the Law Society and himself in seeking from Parliament this change in the existing law. I think the noble Lord will also agree that the change is in accordance with a recommendation of the Report of Professional Services of the Monopolies Commission in 1970, which is perhaps a third and additional reason.
The second reason given by the noble Lord—namely, the likelihood of this country joining the European Economic Community; and in my particular case the appropriate word would be "when" and not "if"—is one of far-reaching consequence. I suppose he had in mind the Article which is relevant to this particular topic—Article 52 of the Treaty of Rome. That Article is drawn in very general terms and I have no doubt that the Government, as the noble and learned Lord may be able to tell us, has given consideration to its full implications. If I may quote just part of Article 52, the words are:
"Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be abolished by progressive stages in the course of the transitional period."

1223
Then I omit some words, and the Article continues:
"Freedom of establishment shall include the right to engage in and carry on non-wage earning activities."
My Lords, I should have thought that the meaning of those words—and I speak without having considered them with any great profundity but indicating what they seem to me to mean—is that most, if not all, professions should be open to non-British subjects, or rather members of the Community countries, provided of course that they are able to demonstrate that they have passed—as the noble Lord said—the necessary tests to show that they have acquired the knowledge and expertise necessary to enable them to practice in the particular professions. We are concerned to-day with the profession of solicitors, but I should have thought that those words—and I do not know whether or not the noble and learned Lord will agree with me—would apply to most professions, if not all. I do not ask him to reply now because I know the point is one of difficulty, but no doubt it will have to be considered in due course.
I should like to pause for a moment on Clause 2, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has said, substitutes as the test for practising the profession of a solicitor for the existing words which are to be found in Section 3 of the 1957 Act—namely, "moral fitness to be an officer of the Supreme Court", these words:
"character and his fitness and suitability to be a solicitor".
I pause on those words because I personally have had some experience of rather similar phrasing which is applicable in the case of a student who wishes to be called to the Bar. The words which his sponsor has to certify are that he is a "fit and proper person to be called to the Bar". The words which Clause 2 seeks to introduce into the Bill have been in the 1967 Training Regulations for Solicitors and therefore they are well known, and it may well be the case—and I should have thought that it probably was the case—that the Law Society has, as it were, developed a case law of its own to indicate the kind of application that those words would have in particular cases. If I may say so, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that it is not desirable
1224
that the Law Society should have to act as a kind of moral censor, which was requisite when the words were, "moral fitness to be an officer of the Supreme Court". It should not be for them to decide whether an applicant should become a solicitor if he has been suspected perhaps of an irregular association with a member of the opposite sex to whom he is not lawfully married. I should have thought that the extension of the phrase may at any rate pose questions. The words are "fitness and suitability". I very much hope that nobody would ever be excluded because of his political views. There might be some cases of difficulty. Supposing one had an applicant who was a very convinced anarchist and against any kind of legal system of any sort or kind. I would hope that the Law Society would not exclude him if he was in other ways a fit and suitable person to become a solicitor. All sorts of situations can be imagined. Long-haired, bizarre dress, I should have thought clearly were out. But suppose a young man was found at a party at which "pot" was being consumed. These sort of difficulties may arise, and common sense will no doubt dispose of them. I simply call attention to the kind of difficulties that might arise in unusual cases, and I pass on from it.
I entirely agree, if I may say so, with what the noble Lord said on Clause 3. It is quite absurd that a solicitor who for admirable reasons may wish to have his name withdrawn from the Roll should have to ask a committee which is called a disciplinary committee. It has absolutely nothing to do with discipline, and he may have admirable reasons for wishing to have his name withdrawn. It has been recognised recently that it is desirable in the public interest that transfer between the Bar and the solicitors' profession should be facilitated. It is accepted that a student of law very often does not make the right choice, from his point of view, at that stage in deciding which of the two professions he wishes to join, and he might, having joined one, find later on that he would have preferred to have joined the other. Therefore, the arrangements now have facilitated transfer, and I think that makes it all the more important to make it unnecessary for a young man who has become a solicitor and wishes to have his name

1225
withdrawn in order to join the Bar to have to apply to a disciplinary body. Discipline does not enter into it in the least. Therefore, I would agree with that change.
On Clause 4 may I ask one simple question, which I am sure the noble Lord will be able to answer? Does the fee payable for a practising certificate qualify as a deduction for the purpose of assessing income and surtax liability on a solicitor? When I had something to do with this sort of problem, I remember thinking that possibly it did not, because it was a fee he had to pay not in the course of the conduct of his practice, but in order to qualify him to practise. In these days it makes rather a difference whether or not it is an allowable deduction. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will be able to answer that from his experience, and I should like to know the position.
I come to Clause 5, which has to be read together with Schedule 1 to which I referred earlier. It is a very striking clause and Schedule 1 is striking. At first sight, the powers seem very drastic. In point of fact, if one looks at Schedule 1, it is closely modelled on Schedule 1 of the 1965 Act, although it is extended in scope. I would not ask your Lordships to look at it in any detail, but it may he of some value to look at what I might call the high peak of severity. It is our duty as a legislative House on Second Reading of a Bill to examine it and be fully conscious of what we are enacting. May I examine that high peak by directing your Lordships' notice to the following changes? To begin with, under Section 31 of the 1957 Solicitors Act the Council. before it could use the powers conferred by Schedule 1 in the form in which it ultimately appeared in the 1965 Act, had to have "reasonable cause to believe" that there had been dishonesty on the part of the solicitor. Only in that situation could the powers be exercised.
One significant change that is made is that the words "reasonable cause to believe" have been deleted, and the words "reason to suspect" have been substituted for them. If, therefore, the Council has reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of the solicitor it can, in terms of Schedule 1 of this Bill, by notice put into operation in relation to
1226
that solicitor the full powers which are contained in Schedule 1 of this Bill. I think it might not be unnecessarily trespassing on your Lordships' time if I quote from paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 in order to indicate what can be done by the Council of the Law Society if that notice has been given; in other words, if the Council has reason to that solicitor the full powers which are contained in Schedule 1 of this Bill. I think it might not be unnecessarily trespassing on your Lordships' time if I quote from paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 in order to indicate what can be done by the Council of the Law Society if that notice has been given; in other words, if the Council has reason to suspect dishonesty it can give notice, and then it can exercise among other powers the following:
"The Society may require the production or delivery to any person appointed by the Society at a time and place to be fixed by the Society, and may take possession of all documents in the possession or control of the solicitor or his firm (whether or not the documents are the property of the solicitor or his firm), or relating to any controlled trust.
"If any person having possession or control of any such document fails to comply forthwith with any requirement made under this paragraph, he shall be guilty of an offence and he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50."
That means that if the Council has reason to suspect—not certainty; simply reason to suspect—it can give notice and it can then require documents to be delivered at any time and place to themselves or any person they may indicate as recipient of the documents, whether the documents belong to the solicitor or to somebody else; and anybody who fails to comply forthwith, excuse or no excuse, can be subject to criminal process and fined up to £50. That is the power.
It has to be considered against the words to which I have referred, "reason to suspect". When the phrase was "reasonable cause to believe", I assume that the requisite was in the first place that the Council should in fact have believed that there was dishonesty and, secondly, that it should have had reasonable grounds for so believing. "Reason to suspect" is far more restrictive. I should like to hear from the noble Lord whether he has formed a view about this. All that is requisite to bring into operation the words "reason to suspect" in the first place is that those responsible must think there is a likelihood, or perhaps just a possibility, of dishonesty and, secondly, they must have a reason for so thinking which must be respectable in the sense only that it is not bogus. It may fall far short of something that is reasonable in the sense that it might influence the judgment of ordinary reasonable people.

1227
I said at the outset that I do not criticise these powers; I simply call the attention of the House to their drastic and far-reaching quality. In the very nature of things the Council must be able in the event of dishonesty, in order to protect the client or the beneficiary under a trust, to act at once and effectively before the funds in which the client or the beneficiary are concerned disappear. Speaking for myself, I entirely accept that in order to make this action effective at once, within the necessarily short period of time, it needs just precisely these powers which the Bill asks from your Lordships' House and I hope that your Lordships will think it right to grant these powers.
A word on Clause 7. It is in the public interest that the services of experienced solicitors should be available as justices of the peace. As the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said, in the existing situation there really is often a very strong deterrent against a busy solicitor's offering his services and accepting the honour and duties involved in being a justice of the peace. If he is a justice of the peace for a Commission area, his practice is prohibited in the whole of that area. That means that a solicitor who sits perhaps in one court in one petty sessional division of that area and not in others, simply cannot practice—nor can his partners—anywhere else in that Commission area. I think that restriction is quite unnecessary, although everybody accepts that it must be apparent that there is no question of any solicitor sitting on the bench being otherwise than completely independent and uninterested personally in any issue which comes before him for trial.
Clauses 8, 9 and 10 are technical. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, has explained their purpose very clearly, and I need not add to what he has said, except perhaps one word about Clause 10, the importance of which may have escaped those who are not immediately concerned with the operation of the functions of what will be the Disciplinary Tribunal. If, as is necessary at present under Section 49 of the 1957 Act, the finding of the Tribunal has to be preceded by a full statement of the facts, it will often be impossible to deliver the decision of the Tribunal at once. The solicitor who
1228
appears before the Tribunal wants to know immediately what his fate is going to be. Supposing there is a case in which there are a great many documents and a number of complicated facts to decide. It may take a considerable time before a proper and carefully considered statement of those facts and documents can be prepared and made available, and therefore delay is bound to ensue. This imposes great hardship on the solicitor concerned, who is no doubt most anxious to know what his fate is, and this delay is obviated by the change proposed in Clause 10.
I say nothing on the Compensation Fund beyond associating myself very warmly with what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said about it. It obviously is a most important and excellent institution, which gives very great protection to members of the public who might otherwise suffer loss. I will go quickly through the remaining clauses because, as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said, they are technical in nature and do not, I think, involve any point of general application. I should just like to ask one general question on Clause 15. The power of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor under the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889 is preserved by Clause 15(5). I gather that is because he has the power to appoint as commissioners for oaths persons who are not practising solicitors. Is that power often used? Is it really necessary? The noble and learned Lord has very kindly shaken his head, and has given me his answer. I wonder whether he really wants to retain it—but that is a matter for him and those who prepared the Bill.
One final observation on the Bill. The last clause, Clause 19(4), extends Clause 1 (which relates to the eligibility of solicitors who are not British subjects to become solicitors) to Northern Ireland. None of the other provisions of this Bill, however, are extended to Northern Ireland. I should like to know why that is. I assume that this change in the Act of Settlement is a change which has a constitutional flavour about it, and that that is the reason why that particular clause is extended to Northern Ireland. The others do not have that characteristic, and therefore it is left to the Government of Northern Ireland to make such changes as they think in their own discretion are necessary.

1229
My Lords, I want to make only one concluding general observation. The law relating to the profession of solicitors at the moment is found in two major Acts: one, the Solicitors Act 1957, and secondly, a second major Act, the Solicitors Act 1965, with which the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, will always be gratefully associated because of the work he did in relation to it. I believe I am right in thinking that the present Bill is a step in a rather more far-reaching purpose to consolidate the whole of the law relating to solicitors. It certainly should be found in one place, and I am very glad to hear that this Bill, which indeed is precisely in terms framed in order to facilitate that, will in due course, find its place with the Acts of 1957 and 1965, in one large consolidated measure. I hope your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading.
5.37 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, as Master of the Rolls I have a special relationship with solicitors. Historically it was the Master of the Rolls who was in charge of solicitors, but now solicitors are the one great profession that is under the control of Parliament. It needs a Statute to regulate the profession of solicitors. May I say, as Master of the Rolls, that there used to be a parchment Roll of solicitors. It is now the only Roll left to the Master of the Rolls, but it is simply a foolscap list. On the few matters relating to the Roll, may I say that I should welcome the extension to people who are not British subjects. People who are not British subjects can be called to the Bar now, and there is no reason why they should also not be called, to be admitted to be solicitors, especially in view of this country's early advent into the Common Market.
The next requirement in this Bill withholds and takes away the old qualification that the Society must be satisfied as to the moral fitness of the candidate to be a solicitor. Nowadays, students and others object to their morals being the concern of others: they say that their morals are their own private concern. So the Society are now proposing to be satisfied only as to their character and fitness and suitability. It comes very much to the same thing, but in modern language.
1230
May I come to the next clause of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill mentioned, and that is the drastic power for the Society to intervene when it has reason to suspect that the solicitor may have been guilty of dishonesty or, indeed, of not acting for the funds and the like. The previous provision required that the Council of the Society had a "reasonable cause to believe", and before they could act they had to have sufficient evidence in their hands to warrant a prosecution and to obtain a verdict of guilty. That did not enable them to act quickly enough, and the amended version reads that if they "have reason to suspect"—that is, good cause, good information in their hands whereby they feel the circumstances are so suspicious that steps must be taken to protect the clients and the public—then they can act. I would submit to your Lordships that that is a good practical amendment.
The next part of this Bill with which, as Master of the Rolls, I am particularly concerned is the tribunal for disciplinary matters. In the past there has been a disciplinary committee, as it is called, appointed by the Master of the Rolls from the 50 or 60 solicitors who are members of the Council of the Law Society. It has always been the Master of the Rolls who has appointed the members. Naturally enough, members of the public thought that the disciplinary committee was just another committee of the Law Society, such as the Professional Purposes Committee, and that there would be a solicitor brought before a committee of the Law Society by the Law Society. The Law Society, it was thought, was being judge in its own cause. That was a wrong and erroneous impression, because the committee was completely independent. As a member of the Bar, I have appeared before it and I have often said that it is one of the best tribunals that I have known and have ever appeared before. But to remove all suggestion that it is a committee of the Law Society itself, this amendment is to describe this as the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. In addition, the Master of the Rolls is not hound to confine himself to the mere 50 or 60 members of the Council. He can select the members from all the solicitors throughout the profession, and the number is increased

1231
to 15 to enable that to be done. I should hope your Lordships would think that that would be a further improvement in the disciplinary machinery of the profession.
There is nothing more that I would say about these provisions. I have had the benefit of seeing the President of the Law Society and the members of the Council and have gone through the provisions with them, and we have had the benefit this afternoon of having my noble friend Lord Tangley explain them to the House. All I would say is that I warmly commend them to your Lordships' consideration.
5.43 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, as we all expected, the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, delivered a remarkable speech which gave the House the benefit of his very deep knowledge of the subject with which he was dealing. He, and the noble and learned Lords who have followed him, have lucidly explained practically all the provisions of the Bill. They have all commended the acceptance of the Bill by your Lordships, as do I. A measure of this nature must of necessity contain a large number of technical terms and provisions, but it is in the main a further step in the development of a professional service of considerable value for the benefit of the community at large—a service which unfortunately all too often is misunderstood and consequently misrepresented, even in some political circles which certainly should know very much better. The provisions in this Bill are put forward for your Lordships' approval after diligent inquiry into the present legislation affecting solicitors, in an attempt to rectify any defects which have been disclosed by such study. The skill and experience of officers, members and staff of the Law Society drawn from all parts of the country, and other eminent knowledgeable persons, have been used for this purpose. The intention is also to bring the law relating to the profession up to date in consequence of legislation which has been passed, particularly after the Solicitors Acts of 1957 and 1965.
As your Lordships are aware, before being enrolled as a solicitor a person has
1232
to pass some difficult examinations and serve under articles in a solicitor's office. He has to undergo exhaustive tests to satisfy the Law Society as to his fitness, first to be allowed to take articles and later to become a solicitor. Among those tests at present, under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the 1957 Act which has already been referred to, is the one that no person shall be admitted as a solicitor unless the Law Society is satisfied as to inter alia his
"moral fitness to be an officer of the Supreme Court".
As we have already heard, Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to alter that provision by substituting for the reference to moral fitness, a reference to the applicant's
"character and his fitness and suitability to be a solicitor."
That would correspond with the test to be satisfied on enrolment as a student under the Training Regulations 1957, which itself derives from the Solicitors Act 1936 where this form of words was used. The purpose—and I refer to this again, because it is very important—is to enable admission to be a solicitor to be refused on the grounds, for example, of nervous disorder or mental illness. Of course the profession itself is very anxious that the people who enter the profession shall be suitable persons to do so and shall be in a position to fulfil in a suitable manner their duties to their clients and, through their clients, to the public.
When a solicitor enters into practice he is bound by strict rules as to his conduct towards his clients, as to the keeping of proper books and banking accounts, and as to his financial ability to continue in practice. All of these matters have been controlled under the provisions of current Acts, and, as has already been stated, it is proposed in this Bill to tighten up those measures which, by experience and examination in depth, have been found to be not sufficiently effective. I use the opportunity of this Second Reading to say that I hope your Lordships will realise that at this time it is perhaps important that some consideration should be given to where the profession stands, to what it does, to the difficulties of entering the profession and to the strict manner in

1233
which the actions of the solicitor are controlled.
May I point out that a solicitor is entrusted with millions of pounds of clients' money in the course of his activities? More important, perhaps, are the countless clients of meagre means who trust solicitors with their life savings in the course of small property and other transactions. Innermost secrets are divulged to, and discussed with, their solicitors by clients in the firm knowledge that their confidence will not be betrayed. I believe that there are some 25,000 practising certificates issued, and some 18,000 solicitors in practice as principals. The defaulters are very few indeed. So far as possible every conceivable reasonable precaution is taken by the Law Society to prevent abuses. The clauses in the Bill dealing with supervision and safeguards are designed to help in this regard, as I am sure they will. I think the Bill once again alerts the public to the special relationship which a solicitor has towards his client; one which is, for example, similar to that of a doctor towards his patient. The man in the street is, all too often, misled into placing legal affairs in the hands of unqualified persons who have not had appropriate training, and whose activities and funds are not supervised by a responsible authority. This is a risk which obviously should not be taken by any reasonable person. It is like placing his affairs in the hands of somebody who, in the case of a patient, (if I may use the expression) a "quack" doctor.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills for over 30 years, I feel that the amendments which are included in the Bill for the purpose of consolidation are of considerable value. They will result in the saving of much time of the legal draftsmen, and will remove some ambiguities which exist in the law at present.
An illustration of this is contained in Clause 1 of the Bill, which again has already been referred to. Section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700 provides that aliens are incapable, inter alia, of holding certain offices or places of trust under the Crown. In 1900, the Law Society was advised that this provision had the effect of preventing the admission of non-British subjects as solicitors. Apart from other arguments for the removal of the
1234
restriction, a query has arisen as to whether a solicitor who ceases to be a British subject after admission is not thereby disqualified from being or practising as a solicitor. There is uncertainty about this. Unless Clause 1 were passed, the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills would have difficulty in deciding what the position is in law, and possibly might have to leave the uncertainty unsolved in the consolidating Act. I refer to this because we have frequently had experience in the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills of endeavouring to decide what in fact the law really is; and I think that, in so far as the consolidation of Acts affecting solicitors is concerned, this Bill provides something which will be extremely useful and which has been very well thought out.
I do not want to go into all the clauses. Your Lordships have already heard about them, and I think that practically everybody in your Lordships' House will agree that they are measures which, either in their present form or perhaps with some Amendments which may occur to your Lordships on Committee stage, make up a Bill which is an acceptable one and which should be passed.
I want to conclude by referring to one provision which I think is extremely important. I am going to talk about the position of solicitors as justices of the peace. In my view, a solicitor who gives his time for the purpose of sitting on a bench, in addition to rendering the usual invaluable service of a justice of the peace, is rendering a further service to the community by giving the benefit of his professional training and knowledge to the country; and if a solicitor is prepared to do that, then in my view every encouragement should be given to him to act in that capacity. We now know, of course, that solicitors will be sitting as judges in the Crown Courts; and it would have been an absurd thing to have prevented a solicitor who wanted to give his services without any remuneration from sitting with a fellow solicitor who was giving his services for remuneration—and I am glad that the Law Society has taken this point into consideration.
Under the present law, as I understand it. a solicitor is not only prevented from acting in the petty sessions in which he is practising, but is, alas! prevented from

1235
practising in the Commission area—which, in a case like Inner London, for example, is a very wide area indeed. Solicitors' firms are now joining up in partnership with other firms. The general trend to-day is that practices become larger in so far as the personnel is concerned; and it would really have been absurd, as indeed it is to-day, I think, for a solicitor not to be able to sit in a court which may be many miles away (as in the case in Inner London to which I have already referred) because he or his partners happened to be practising in a petty sessional division which was part of that particular Commission area.
The provision in this Bill to remove that anomaly is, I think, something which is of very great importance. When we consider a Bill of this nature, with its technicalities and the language which is used, we are apt to regard it as being something dealing only with the machinery of the profession. But this is not only machinery. The machinery is that which affects the destiny of hundreds of thousands of people in our country. From the cradle to the grave they have the need of assistance from the profession of which I have the honour to be a member; and I think that everything which has been produced here—in addition, of course, to the Acts which are in existence at present—is not just a matter of prosaic interest. There is more in the Acts which deal with a profession of this nature than just technicalities. They are dealing with human lives. I make no apology—and I hope your Lordships will agree with me that no apology is necessary—if, in speaking on a measure of this kind, I have sometimes strayed from commenting on the wording of the clauses themselves, and have perhaps dealt in a more general sense with the subject matter, which is so important to me, as I think it is to all of us. I think the Bill should commend itself to the House. and I hope that it will receive an unopposed Second Reading.
5.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, if I may detain your Lordships for just a few moments, I would do so for two reasons. First, I should not like it to be thought that there is no member of our profession who sits upon these Benches. Secondly, I should not like it to be
1236
thought that those of us on these Benches do not also support this Second Reading. May I also add a further argument to those which have been advanced in favour of Clause 3 of the Bill? Clause 3 provides that the removal from or restoration of the name of a solicitor upon the Roll at his own request shall be dealt with in future by the Law Society instead of by the Disciplinary Committee. As your Lordships have already heard, the Disciplinary Committee is an entirely independent body; and in the case of a voluntary removal of this sort it really does seem quite illogical that an independent body should have the right to remove from the Roll a solicitor who has been appointed to it by the Law Society.
A further small point which has occurred to to me, and which I hope we shall be able to consider further in Committee, concerns sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3 of the First Schedule. That is the paragraph which has attracted considerable attention this afternoon, and the particular phrase which perturbs me slightly is:
"If any person having possession or control of any such documents fails to comply forthwith with any requirement made under this paragraph, he shall be guilty of an offence …".
It occurs to me that there might be considerable difficulty in the person in question being able to "comply forthwith". I hope that we may consider the possibility of reducing to some extent the strictness of that provision; though I recognise that so far as is possible speed is essential to render it practicable. I listened with great interest and pleasure to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I must admit that he frightened me somewhat on one occasion when I rather got the impression that he was advocating that an anarchist should not be debarred from enrolment as a solicitor. I would assure him that I would regard my responsibility to my own clients with great perturbation if I had at least one anarchist, known as such, in my office.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I was not advocating a view either way. I was simply saying that the words might pose difficulties and that that is the sort of difficulty to which they might give rise.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I would not say that it altogether relieves my anxieties.

1237
The other point I should like to raise is in association with the noble Lord, Lord Janner. Like him, as a member of the Consolidation Committee, I regard the action taken to bring this measure into line with and ready for consolidation as a good step and one which is exceedingly helpful. I hope very much that your Lordships will grant this Bill a Second Reading.
6.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think it is desirable that someone should speak on this Bill on behalf of the Government and I suppose it is inevitable that that someone should be me. We have listened to a number of attractive and charming speeches from all quarters of the House, and it is hardly necessary for me to go into the details of the Bill. However, I think it is important for me to say that all of the provisions, without exception, have been the subject of quite exhaustive discussion (I do not think that "negotiation" is the right word) between my Office and the Law Society. They all have my approval. The contentious ones have my personal approval; and at least three of them have been not merely approved but rather actively fomented by me for inclusion in the Bill. I refer in particular to the enlargement of the Commissionership of Oaths to the entire profession; the enlargement of the right of solicitors to sit on a magisterial bench except in their petty sessional division, on the assumption that they do not sit on cases in which their partners are appearing as advocates; and the removal of the bar on the admission of aliens to the Roll. All these proposals have not merely my approval but my active support; and I hereby record that fact.
I want to say this in addition. This is a Private Member's Bill and therefore it depends upon the good will of all Parties in both Houses of Parliament for its chances of getting on the Statute Book. It will of course pass through this House without difficulty; but if my voice could for a moment reach to the hubbub going on at the other end of the Corridor I should like to say that this is a very badly needed Bill. The fact that it is technical, that its provisions are miscellaneous and that its content by any standards is not throbbing with human interest should not prevent people from
1238
understanding that this Bill is very badly needed indeed and that a real disservice would be done to the administration of law in this country if for any reason it were held up, either by the excessive zeal of its supporters or by the undue conscientiousness of those who would introduce relatively minor Amendments. It is important that it should reach the Statute Book. I promised the Law Society that the little I can do—and I am afraid it is very little—to induce both Houses of Parliament to pass it this Session will be done. Although as a Private Member's Bill, it cannot command Government time, we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, reminded the House, lent our drafting support so far as we can; and any help that we can give will be available. In the end, however, the question whether it reaches the Statute Bill will depend on the co-operation of members of all Parties in both Houses of Parliament. I hope myself sincerely that such co-operation will be generously forthcoming.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, began with gracious words of thanks about a matter unconnected with the content of this Bill; namely, my Statement about the right of audience in the Crown Court. I was very glad to give that matter my attention and I was grateful to him for what he said about it. It gives me the opportunity of reiterating in this House, and therefore possibly reaching a wider audience, some of the things that I said at greater length when I was addressing the Law Society at their annual meeting at Folkestone last year. I am sometimes very distressed to get letters from Members of Parliament whose constituents are solicitors indicating that they are somehow under the impression that I undervalue the solicitors' profession. I do not think that anyone who was at Folkestone last year, or who heard or read my speech, will be under any misapprehension at all about that. I have worked with, under and against the solicitors' profession for all my professional life, for 40 years. I know innumerable members of that profession quite intimately. There are no words that I can utter too high in praise of the skill, the integrity, the discernment and zeal of that profession in serving their clients, the public and the courts of which they are officers. Almost everything that I have achieved in life would have been

1239
totally impossible without a mutual confidence between myself and numerous members of that profession.
The solicitors' profession is in the hands of Parliament, as my noble and learned friend (if I may so call him, in the professional though not in the political sense) the Master of the Rolls reminded the House. The Lord Chancellor's influence over it is really peripheral except as Chairman of the Statutory Committee in which, although he owns a vote and a veto, he does not command, and does not seek to command, a majority. On the other hand, as I said at Folkestone last autumn, I regard myself in some ways inside Parliamentary and Government circles as a sort of shop steward for the legal community, and I do everything I can to promote the interests of all parts of the legal community, the judiciary, the teaching profession, the solicitors and the barristers, to the very best of my ability. And in doing so I think that I am both discharging my constitutional function and also paying a debt of honour.
My Lords, if I may add this, on this part of the matter, which the noble Lord, Lord Tangley gave me the opportunity to say: I regard my own political life and standpoint, except in so far as it can be identified with any particular sectional interest (and I suppose that we all have particular sectional interests at heart more than others) as identified with that of the professional classes in this country. I am a professional man and the son of a professional man, and I have been brought up and lived in a profession and in a professional context all my working life. When I have made speeches, as sometimes I have, to solicitors and barristers, and also to engineers and doctors, I have always stressed the immense value and importance of the professional classes, and of the members of professions, to the standards of public life and social integrity in this country. I believe that they add something absolutely distinctive, something without which a free society would be wholly impossible and which, I think, tends to be undervalued since they are not persons who command big battalions in the way of votes. They are neither captains of industry nor members of vast trade unions. They are sometimes derided. They are frequently
1240
abused. But on the whole I believe them to be the salt of the earth.
My Lords, I do not want to do more than underline what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, very charmingly said from the Opposition Benches. He asked, I think, only one question of me and that I will seek to answer. It was about the relatively small point of my humble power to appoint commissioners of oaths. I am very glad indeed that this Bill relieves me of the obligation to appoint solicitors by the simple process of making them all commissioners of oaths, without the necessity for the signature of the Lord Chancellor. Lord Chancellors used to be remunerated largely by the number of signatures they appended to documents. This was a valuable source of income because my predecessor, Lord Eldon, who was Lord Chancellor for 27 years—a longer period of office than I hope to achieve myself; he was Lord Chancellor during the reign of George III and George IV—had an average income of £14,728 a year, in the days before income tax and when pounds were weighed in sovereigns made of gold. So this power of making signatures was very important in those days. However, my Lords, I am not remunerated in that way now, although I sometimes think that some of the signatures required of me date back to that time, at any rate in philosophy, and could be reduced in number. This is one way of reducing quite a lot of them.
I do, none the less (this is in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill) wish, at any rate for the present, to retain the residuary power of making people commissioners of oaths who are not solicitors. There is a mysterious body of men in English law called "notaries" who are not all solicitors. They are mainly there to impress the foreigners. It is on the Continent of Europe that notaries are extremely important and sometimes the office is handed down from father to son. They "protest bills" whatever that may be, and they perform a number of wholly indispensable functions in international law. I think that the Archbishop of Canterbury makes some, but I make others, and, very often at any rate, they have to be commissioners of oaths. I should like to keep that residuary power at any rate until we see how well the

1241
public is served when we have made all solicitors commissioners of oaths.
I was grateful indeed to my noble and learned friend Lord Denning for coming in as Master of the Rolls. I am afraid that the Rolls now as he says are somewhat notional objects and I do not know whether he really masters them any longer. But it is a dignified title. He administers the Oath to the Lord Chancellor and sometimes keeps him in order. He was very welcome this afternoon. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and to my noble friend Lord Brentford for their tributes to their own great profession and for the support that this Bill has had. I do not think that there were very many points in either of their speeches with which I need to deal in detail.
To the noble Lord, Lord Janner, I would say specifically that the clause which enlarges the capacity of solicitors to sit on the magisterial bench, as I think I have already observed, is not merely something which has my approval; it had also my active support in the discussional stage of this particular measure. There must of course be a limit for it, because a solicitor cannot sit in his own back yard. His clients might be thought—even if they did not—to have an advantage; and, of course, his partners could not appear before the bench when he was sitting and so it is really an advantage to exclude him from that. Otherwise I wholly agree that they make absolutely admirable magistrates and I am glad that this Bill will give them an even greater opportunity to demonstrate that fact.
My Lords, I do not think that I need to deal with the Committee point raised by my noble friend. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, will have noted it. With those words may I simply reiterate that this is a Bill which is very badly needed, and I hope that, despite other difficulties in one place or another, it may have the active support of all Parties in both Houses of Parliament.
6.17 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, may I first express my very deep and warm thanks to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am blushing on behalf of my profession at the thought
1242
of all the kind things said about it during the debate—mostly deserved I must admit, but very nice to hear all the same.
There were two or three points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to which I think I ought to reply. He first raised the question of Article 52 of the Rome Treaty, the Article which provides for the right of settlement or establishment. I do not know what that Article means. I think it will be a long time before we come to any final conclusion about that. But one element in it must be that it is an anachronism to insist that only a British subject can become a solicitor. That must be inconsistent with the Rome Treaty, whatever view one takes of it.
The second point which the noble Lord raised was about the question of moral fitness, or suitability, or what should be the criterion applied by the Law Society in deciding on applications from would-be solicitors. I think I said that it is very difficult to devise any phrase which is completely free from criticism. I believe that the phrase we have at present is unduly restrictive and could, for the reasons given by the Master of the Rolls, be offensive. I believe that the second one is more sensible. and certainly it will be applied with common sense. He asked also whether the fee payable to the Law Society for the practising certificate is allowed as an expense for income tax purposes. I can only say that I have had over fifty of them, and nobody has ever raised any question about that: the inspector of taxes has always taken it as a matter of course. I believe it is a fact that the practising certificate fee is part of the expenses of carrying on one's practice and is universally allowed for tax purposes. I have never known there to be any question about it.
The matter of changing the words "reasonable cause to believe" to "reasonably expect" has, I think, been so adequately dealt with by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls that I do not need to say anything more about it: I certainly could not improve on anything said from that quarter. The last question asked by the noble Lord was on Clause 19. He asked: why is it that only Clause 1 of the Bill is made to apply to Northern Ireland? The answer is that Northern Ireland has its own

1243
Code of Practice for solicitors and its own machinery for dealing with them. Therefore, it would be quite inappropriate to apply to Northern Ireland most of the provisions of this Bill. But Clause 1 is of general application and therefore quite properly applies to Northern Ireland. The other clauses by definition do not.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, raised the point which I thought was quite a bad one. There is no difficulty whatever, in the circumstances he mentioned, for anybody to comply forthwith with an order that has been made. The reason why people do not comply forthwith is that they do not want to. They ought to be made to, and I hope that we shall have no weakening of our attitude in that respect in the course of the proceedings on the Bill.
It only remains for me now to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his very kind remarks, and for his admirable advice with regard to the future conduct of this Bill both in this House and in another place. I remember the acute anxiety that I suffered when I was in charge of the 1965 Bill as to whether it would get through or be lost in the massacre of the innocents. But it survived, with the one stupid compromise which I mentioned earlier. I hope that this Bill will have an equally satisfactory passage, because I believe, for the reasons which have been given on all sides of the House to-day, this is a very good Bill and very much in the public interest.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REDUNDANT MINEWORKERS (PAYMENTS SCHEME) ORDER 1972
6.23 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move That the Draft Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order 1972, laid before the House on the 1st February, be approved. The purpose of the Order is to continue for a further two years the arrangements which were established five years ago for providing financial benefits to mineworkers who become
1244
redundant. The arrangements stem from the recognition that difficulties following redundancy are especially acute in the case of older miners who have spent all or most of their working lives in the mines. They arise out of the contraction of the industry and the exhaustion of mines. Between 1960 and 1970 the number of men working in the mines was exactly halved. It is not possible to forecast from these figures what the contraction is likely to be in the next two years. But whatever happens, the fact remains—and this is our concern today—that any mineworkers who become redundant face particular difficulties because of the generally below average prospects of alternative employment in mining districts and because of the extremely specialised character of their training and experience. The introduction of this Order recognises the claim of those men for special consideration.
The Coal Industry Act 1967 gave power to establish a scheme for making payments to mineworkers made redundant between July 17, 1967, and March 28, 1971, and the scheme was established by the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme Order 1968. The Coal Industry Act 1971 extended the power to make schemes up to March 31, 1974. This is being done in two stages: first the existing scheme was extended to cover men redundant up to March 25, 1972, and a revised scheme has now been drawn up to cover men redundant between March 25, 1972, and March 31, 1974. It is this revised scheme, which has been laid before the House as the draft Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme Order 1972, that we are now considering. During the Committee stage of the 1971 Coal Industry Bill, the Minister for Industry undertook to bring in a new scheme as soon as he had completed the requisite consultations. In the preparation of the new scheme the National Union of Mineworkers were fully consulted. They submitted a memorandum setting out the changes which they wished to see made and they had two meetings with Ministers and a number of meetings with officials during which they put their views orally. The National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot-firers, the other union most concerned with the scheme, were informed of the proposed changes and their comments invited. The National Coal Board were

1245
consulted at all stages in the re-drafting of the scheme.
The purpose of the scheme was clearly stated by the Labour Minister of Power in July, 1967, when he said:
"We are, therefore, preparing a scheme whereby mineworkers who become redundant and have to leave the industry at or after the age of 55 will have their income supplemented by the Board for a period so that they can adjust themselves to their new circumstances".
The House will note from this that the scheme was intended, not to provide indefinite financial help, but to tide over a difficult period in a man's life if he should find himself redundant. The present Government accept that this is the right objective. We have now had some four and a half years' experience of the working of the scheme. A total of 37,000 men have benefited at a cost of about £30 million, and I think I can safely say that, on the whole, the scheme has worked well; it has been welcomed by the men concerned, and it has helped to cushion the hardships inherent in redundancy.
A number of suggestions have been put forward for changing the basis of the scheme, and we have considered these very sympathetically, but it still seems to us that for a scheme of this type a starting age for benefit of 55, a duration of three years, and a level of benefit of 90 per cent. of previous net pay is the best combination we can achieve. We have therefore preserved the basic shape of the scheme and have endeavoured to improve it as much as possible in detail.
There arc two major changes. The first is the introduction of a cost-of-living increment, and the second is the increase from £3 per week to £6 per week of the level of benefit which a man may keep if he finds another job. The cost-of-living increment takes account of the union's claim that the real value of benefit should be preserved. The method of making the cost-of-living adjustment perhaps needs explaining. The House will appreciate that total benefit consists of two elements, unemployment benefit and basic scheme benefit. Now that the Government have announced their intention of adjusting unemployment benefit annually, that element of total benefit will automatically be taken care of. The basic benefit will be adjusted by adding to it an increment based on the rise in the cost of living.
1246
This will be done to each man's account at the end of his first and second years of benefit. These arrangements are detailed in Article 5(2) of the Schedule.
Under present arrangements a man who finds himself another job is allowed to keep up to £3 of scheme benefit. But with his new job a man will probably find that lie has to pay income tax, possibly some union dues and travelling expenses and certainly National Insurance contributions. He could well find himself no better off with a job than without one. For this reason we are putting up the sum that he may retain from £3 to £6 per week. We hope this will be an added inducement to redundant men to try to find other employment. This change is contained in Article 7, paragraph 4.
There are also other ways in which the scheme has been made more advantageous, in addition to the introduction of a cost-of-living adjustment and the increase in the value of benefit during re-employment. There has been strong pressure from the Union and other people to ensure that if a man has engaged in trade union duties or useful social work such as a councillor, or if he has lost an occasional day's work through sickness, allowance should be made for this in calculating his pre-redundancy payments, so that he shall not lose thereby. We have agreed to this, and administrative instructions have been given so as to ensure that these factors will be taken into account in calculating pre-redundancy earnings. No change is therefore required under the scheme itself.
Under the present scheme a rent allowance is tied to the house in which a man was living when he became redundant. We are now proposing that he should keep the allowance once he has established the right to it, even if he changes house. We have greatly eased the rules regarding the off-setting of various State and industry benefits against scheme benefit. We have also introduced a provision which allows a man who is re-employable in the industry and who becomes redundant for a second time to have his wages before his second redundancy taken into account in assessing the level of benefit he should receive. We are arranging that these provisions covering rent off-sets and reemployment in the coal industry should

1247
also apply to men in the present scheme. We have also removed a number of minor anomalies which have caused difficulties in the present scheme.
To summarise, therefore, in framing the new scheme the Government have consulted with the unions principally concerned and have accepted much of what they have proposed. We consider that no change is necessary in the broad outline of the scheme, which has worked well. We have introduced two major improvements: an annual cost-of-living increase and an increase in the amount of benefit which a man may retain if he finds alternative work. We have also made a number of other detailed improvements, and we believe that these are welcomed by the unions. Finally, we have also arranged that, where appropriate, provisions for the new scheme will apply to men now in benefit under the present scheme. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Scheme) Order 1972, laid before the House on February 1, be approved.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
6.35 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords it is certainly not my intention on this, the third occasion on which I have risen to address your Lordships this afternoon, to make a long speech, but I must thank the noble Lord for what he has said and the care with which he has explained this Order. Indeed, if it will not embarrass him, I should like to thank his Government for the care with which they have negotiated with the National Union of Mineworkers and also the relevant parties concerned, before putting this Order before your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord said. this is based on an earlier Scheme, with which those of us in the previous Government were very familiar. I recognise immediately that there have been certain improvements, mainly stemming from the negotiations which have taken place. So far as this Order is concerned, I have nothing but appreciation and gratitude to extend to the Government and to the noble Lord. I would merely underline what he said and draw two short conclusions from it.
1248
I should like to underline that this is a scheme for redundancy payments and not a premature retirement scheme. The noble Lord was good enough to underline that point himself. That being the case, what is of equal or even greater importance for a redundant miner is the prospect of work. Therefore the obvious point to be made here is that of the very large numbers who have been affected by redundancy, who have benefited from this scheme and who get their situation alleviated, as the noble Lord said, as a result of these payments but whose main concern is to find new jobs, something less than 5 per cent. as I understand it, have been successful. This illustrates that the Government should spend much greater effort in trying to devise, both in terms of the background of economic climate and in the particular circumstances affecting mining areas which, as we all know, bring very special problems, the means of introducing possibilities of work for miners who are declared redundant. That is one conclusion which one draws from the nature of this scheme.
The second point I should like the Government to look at—though of course I do not expect a reply this afternoon, nor indeed this year—are the new circumstances which are developing in relation to the volume of work required of most of the working population. Here you have what is admitted to be a very special case, a special working community, special not only in terms of the recent decision, but special in terms of the nature of the work that they do and also in terms of the economic climate in which they work and the restricted areas of alternative opportunities in which they work. I am referring now to the possibility of earlier retirement. I know this is not provided for in this Statutory Instrument, but nevertheless an alternative approach would be that of earlier retirement: for example, retirement at 60. I know the immediate answer which any Government would give is, "This is not the only industry which has problems, and one does not want to set up special precedents." My answer to that is that the miner is a special case, and if we want to give consideration to this very real social problem of earlier retirement which is developing—and by earlier

1249
retirement I am thinking only of retirement at the same date as that at which the civil servant retires—
LORD DRUMALBYN: May retire.
LORD DIAMOND: Yes, may retire. If we want the opportunity of considering that and having a kind of pilot experiment in our social development where we can have a possibility of retiring at 60, surely this would be the ideal case, because although we have an Instrument here of which we, certainly on this side, join in approving and which does alleviate hardship, it does not solve the problem. Less than 5 per cent. finding work in a situation of redundancy does not solve the problem. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will be good enough to tuck away in his mind, and perhaps mention to some of his colleagues on a future occasion, the possibility of moving forward in our thinking in this way. I repeat my gratitude to him.
6.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that in reply I need only thank the noble Lord for what he has just said. He certainly does not embarrass me when his words are agreeable—and they are generally agreeable, even though they are not always in agreement with my view. He raised two very important points, and they are both points of which we are well aware. Of course we fully accept the importance of the prospect of work, but the noble Lord knows as well as I do the difficulties here, especially in places which really have their sole raison d'être in the fact that there is a coalmine there. These are matters which even in my old constituency have been very successfully overcome. It certainly requires a great deal of careful preparation and a good deal of patience as well.
May I say this with regard to the noble Lord's observations on earlier retirement? He is absolutely right; this Order is essentially a redundancy scheme. That being so, the character of the benefits are rather different from what they would have been if we had been providing for earlier retirement. Obviously, if at any time we were to consider this the two schemes would require careful marrying; we should have to bring them together in some way that was considered fair. That would have to be carried out if we were to adopt what the noble
1250
Lord described as a "pilot experiment" of retirement at sixty for miners. As he said, this has nothing to do with the scheme that we are laying before your Lordships at the present time. Like most of the suggestions the noble Lord makes, it is well worth considering. I imagine that it is already being considered, and I shall certainly make certain that this is so. With those few words I hope that the House will now he prepared to give us this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ICELANDIC FISHERY LIMITS
6.42 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the negotiations with Iceland on fishery limits. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Before I go any further I ought to explain, and frankly confess, that I am not an expert on fisheries. I am not an expert fisherman; the nearest I ever came to catching fish was with tiddlers from a pond, although I can lay some claim to the championship of South Tottenham as a fish and chip eater. The reason why I put down this Unstarred Question stems directly from a visit I made to Iceland, where a play of mine was being performed in Reykjavik. It had a little success. I do not claim any credit for the play; I think people went to it because it was called Hot Summer Night and in Iceland that had a certain attraction. The point that interested and began eventually to intrigue me was that everywhere I went when I talked to various people in all walks of life, actors, cleaners in the hotel. Members of Parliament, novelists, and sculptors, came up to me and said, "What are you going to do and what is your attitude about the fishery limits?" It was as if everybody in this country when you went to a party said, "What do you think about the decline in the mining industry?" It was rapidly forced upon me that fishery limits and fishing is the way of life in Iceland. It is as essential and as important to everybody in Iceland as many other things are to us. It is a nation that lives on the back of fish. As I went into the matter and began

1251
to talk to various Members of Parliament and other people I became convinced that Iceland had a strong case. I made a promise that I would put that case to the British Parliament, which is why I am on my feet at this moment.
We ought to begin by thinking a little about the background of the situation. First we should remember that Iceland is an outpost of Western Europe. It is a nation with a total of 208,000 people. That is about the size of the population of Southampton, is twice the size of that of Gateshead or, let us put it this way: you could fill Tottenham Hotspur's ground four times with the total population of Iceland. I learned when I was there, and we shall all learn, that a nation is not measured by the size of its population. The special character of Iceland, which I came to admire when I was there. has been forged in two fires: history and tradition on the one hand, and economic need on the other. The history is familiar to many of your Lordships. These are the Viking forefathers who scoured the world in their longships and who were immortalised in their heroic sagas, sagas which are to Icelandic children what Mother Goose and Cinderella are to ours. To-day they still learn in these sagas of nobility and courage, the urge for adventure, chivalry, and so forth.
When you remember that that nation depends utterly on what they can harvest from the wild seas around their shores, you begin to understand why these sagas are important. These sagas give them a philosophy; they create standards of courage and behaviour; they promote these standards. When you remember that fishing in the circumstances in which they fish, and in which our deep sea fishermen fish, has the highest mortality rate, much higher than mining or anything else, then you will understand why they need, and feel the need for, the philosophy that lies behind their sagas. Linked with this there is a fierce independence. They separated after a long time from their Danish kings, and their Parliament is probably the oldest in Europe and one of the oldest in the world. They have a great tradition of democracy and independence. That is something of the past, and it is important to understand it in this present situation.
The other great factor is the economic one. Iceland is a lovely, beautiful but bleak and barren island. About 85 to 90 per cent. of the land is unproductive. Apart from fishing, the rearing of livestock is the only other key industry, but that is very small and is not capable of expansion to any marked degree. They have no minerals or fuel resources of their own. So we come back inevitably to fish. No other nation, no other country in the world, is as dependent upon fish as is the Icelandic nation. Fish and fish products represent between 80 and 90 per cent. of their exports, as against, in our case, something like one-third of 1 per cent. I believe that is so; I cannot be sure of our figures, but certainly the percentage is very small. With these exports the Icelanders are able to buy those things which they cannot grow for themselves or produce on their own barren land: food, minerals, fuels, machines, and so on. In other words, fish is their lifeblood. Without it Iceland will die and, as the Speaker of their Parliament said to me, "For us it is a matter of life and death". And I have become convinced, in talking to them, that this is truly the case.
No doubt the waters around Iceland are rich in fish: cod, haddock, herring, plaice, halibut and many other kinds of fish. It is as though Nature intended to compensate for the poorness of the land by enriching the ocean surrounding the shore. The reason for this is that Iceland rests on a platform, a form of Continental Shelf, and in these shallow under-water terraces there are ideal conditions for spawning. They are the best nursery grounds in Europe, if not in the world. The result is that fishermen from all over the Continent, if not from all over the world, are attracted to these waters. Between 15 and 20 per cent. of fish eaten in Europe comes from this area.
Because of the island's utter dependence on fish the Icelandic Government has always naturally been concerned about the degree and amount of fishing in its waters. Fishing limits of one sort or another have always been in force. Over the years, going back probably more than 100 years, the limits have been as much as 32 miles, coming down to three miles, in 1901. Iceland was not in favour of the three-mile limit then, but the Agreement was made by

1253
Denmark, which at that time ruled Iceland, at least so far as her foreign affairs were concerned. Nevertheless, that Agreement for the three-mile limit remained in force until 1951 when the now independent Iceland Government withdrew from it.
Why did they withdraw? Because there was already a tremendous danger of over-fishing. There was a vast increase in the number of ships, the size of ships and the methods of fishing which combined to create this danger. And this state of affairs, my Lords, has continued up to the present day and is responsible for creating the present difficulties. Instead of 300 to 500 ton trawlers, we find modern vessels of 1,000 to 1,200 tons, and 4,000-ton factory trawlers, going into these waters—factory trawlers that can stay there for months on end, with electronic gear and other instruments. These vessels have quadrupled—sometimes even more than quadrupled—productivity in fishing. They suck up whole catches from the ocean like vacuum cleaners, young and old fish alike. The result is that we have now very seriously the problem of over-fishing.
The Icelandic Government, which as I have indicated depends entirely on fishing as the country's basic industry, decided in 1948 that it ought to extend the fishery limits to 12 miles, in order to try to safeguard some of the island's national life-blood. In 1958, after 10 years of talk at the United Nations, the Icelandic Government imposed a 12-mile limit because it felt it could not go on talking any longer. This has done a great deal to preserve stocks. But in the last years there has still been a worsening of the situation, again due to over-fishing, because Japanese factory ships, other factory ships and other 1,000-ton trawlers are going in there and over-fishing these terraces and this Continental Shelf.
This can be seen from the figures. The herring catch has dropped dramatically. In 1965 it was something like 800,000 tons plus; five years later it had dropped down to 50,000 tons—one-sixteenth of what it was. The herring are just not there. They are not being allowed or given the time to spawn. The haddock catch fell by one-half between 1965 and 1969, and there are already danger signals with cod, which is the most important
1254
fish of all from the point of view of Iceland and of this country. The total mortality of cod, mainly due to over-fishing, is over 70 per cent. per annum. They are dying—being caught—faster than they can breed or spawn; and that is the grave danger point, not only for Iceland but also for this country. There now exists a real danger of permanent damage to these very important fisheries. This would affect not just Iceland but all fishing nations, because it is no use having the right to fish within a three-mile limit or a 12-mile limit if there are no fish left to catch. That is basically the problem. This is the background of the Icelandic decision to extend the limits to 50 miles. It is a policy of conservation; it is a policy which I have come to believe is in the interests of all the nations that use these fishing grounds. This is the only way the Icelanders can protect the spawning grounds for themselves and for everyone else, and prevent these rich waters from being turned into the oceanic equivalent of the great American dust bowls. That is what is happening.
It has been argued, and is still being argued, that the Icelandic Government is wrong; that this proposal is against international law and that it should be put to the International Court at The Hague. My Lords, there is no basic law on this issue, at we all know. The United Nations is still trying to get one; in fact a Conference on the Law of the Sea is to be held next year. But the Icelandic Government, with the experience of 1948 to 1958 behind it, is not disposed to go on talking; and I must say that in these circumstances I do not altogether blame it.
The second point that has to be said about this is that many nations have wider limits. Argentine, Brazil, Chile, Peru and other nations in South America have 200-mile fishing limits; Canada has a 100-mile pollution limit and sometimes an 80-mile fishing limit on her shores. Ghana and India have fishing limits of over 100 miles. So there is nothing extraordinary in Iceland's suggesting the limit should be 50 miles. What is more, the 50 miles almost exactly coincides with the Continental Shelf on which Iceland rests, and the shape of the continental belt follows almost exactly the shape of the Icelandic coastline. So there is a

1255
very strong case for saying that this is really part of the Icelandic territorial waters.
It has been said that it is wrong to make this unilateral decision, but I believe that if they had stayed to talk any more, while at the end of that talk we might have reached agreement, there would have been no cod, haddock, plaice or herring to catch because they would all have died while we had been talking. Iceland has indicated that within this 50-mile limit she recognises that there is a special case for West German fishermen, and for British fishermen above all, and that she is prepared to talk in genuine terms to British fishermen and to West German fishermen about the special rights within that 50-mile limit in our traditional fishing grounds. I believe that we can accept this assurance and go ahead with those talks. I found no anti-British feeling in Iceland; on the contrary, if anything I found it the other way: a great respect and a liking for this country.
My Lords, I promised—and I have done it—that I would put the Icelandic case before the British Parliament. I have tried to do so very quickly; I have done so inadequately but as best I can. My own view is that it is a very strong case and one I would go along with. I only hope that as these discussions go on we can avoid the absurdities of the so-called "cod war" of 1958. As I indicated, we are dealing with a country of 200,000 people. It has no army; it has no navy; it has no air force. I believe it has 200 policemen and five protection vessels. Those protection vessels are armed with guns, none of which has ever been fired in anger. I am reliably informed that it is very doubtful whether anybody on board knows actually how to fire those guns.
So I hope we shall not again come to the situation that we had in 1958 when the British Navy was escorting our vessels through the Icelandic territorial limits. Because, when we come down to it, in the last analysis deep sea fishing, which, as I have indicated, is a most dangerous pursuit, relies very much on the support of friendly nations. Any one of our vessels that gets into trouble, whether it is 51 miles from the Icelandic coast or 20 miles from the Icelandic coast, needs to put into an Icelandic harbour. It needs
1256
the support of Icelandic hospitals for its sick. It needs the support of Iceland, sometimes, for its food or repairs. No country can hope to fish indefinitely and illegally outside another country without the help of that particular country in some way or another. So Iceland is not relying on armed might in this dispute but essentially on two things: on a moral right, which I think exists very strongly, and on common sense to see this issue through.
My Lords, I realise that our fishermen have a very strong case because they have been fishing for generations in those traditional fishing grounds. I do not think there is any question of their being barred from those grounds, certainly not immediately. There is a strong basis for talking to conserve those grounds, but I think the talk must come on the basis of the Icelandic Government's behaving and acting as it wants to, as the custodian of this very rich fishing ground. And after we have agreed that it is the custodian, then let us talk about other rights. My Lords, on that basis I beg to ask the Question.
6.58 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, may I say one word in warm support of what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has just said. I think the Icelanders have a very strong case. There is only one answer to the fishing problem at the moment, which applies to the whole of the North Sea and far beyond, and that is conservation. I hope that before the next 10 years are out we shall have devised extensive conservation measures in Europe: larger meshes, less ruthless and destructive methods of fishing, and so forth.
I wish the Government had been a little tougher in the negotiations over the Common Market. But they have a good enough standing agreement at the moment on the limits that we have. I am satisfied with them, provided that—and the noble Baroness has given us an assurance on this—at the end of ten years the arrangements which have been negotiated cannot be altered without our consent. In my view there is no doubt about that, but at the same time I think that our limits may have to be extended before 10 years are out, and that

1257
measures will have to be brought in to prevent, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, the wholesale murder of fish by modern destructive methods of fishing—and they are very destructive indeed, with these great trawlers with their small meshes and their beam trawls which scrape the bottom and murder the fish population. If these methods are not changed I fear that within a decade the fish problem will become almost insoluble. I feel that the Icelanders are absolutely within their rights in demanding this limit of protection, with some advantages for our trawlers, in the general concern for conservation of fish which is essential if we are to maintain the fish supplies in the future that we have enjoyed in the past.
7.1 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for raising what is an immensely important subject, both to Iceland and to this country. I must say that I was very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, should support him quite so wholeheartedly, for reasons which I hope to show and which I think will prove that he has gone back on a great deal of his honourable past when representing a part of Scotland so dependent upon fishing.
Perhaps we should first be clear what it is we are discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Willis—and I can understand it well—was immensely attracted by that very beautiful, almost romantic country, and he sought to tell us that Iceland was wholly dependent upon fish. I think perhaps he forgets (if I may put it this way) her hydro-electric schemes and her geo-thermal resources; and it may be that he has forgotten the fact that Iceland is only 75 dollars below the United Kingdom in her gross national product. That does not come only from fishing but from these great natural resources of which I have spoken. If we turn to the question of fisheries alone, of which I can claim that I know a certain amount, having represented the major fishing port in Scotland for 20 years in another place, I think it is right that we should be quite clear what are the arrangements, both internationally between Iceland and ourselves and on the whole question of conservation. which I agree is absolutely vital to all our interests.
1258
My Lords, on February 15 of this year the Icelandic Parliament unanimously approved a resolution which formally resolved that the Government should extend the limits from 12 miles to 50 miles not later than September 1 of this year. The same resolution called on the Government to explain once more to ourselves and the Germans that the 1961 Agreements—and I stress "Agreements"—on fishery limits could apply no longer, and that they wished to continue their attempts to reach agreement with us on the difficulties caused by their proposed extension. On February 24 of this year our Ambassador in Reykjavik was handed an aide-mémoire stating the Icelandic Government's decision to issue regulations providing for the 50-mile fishing limit to become effective on September 1. The same aide-mémoire also stated that the Icelandic Government considered—and I hope the House will note this—that the provisions of the 1961 Agreement were no longer applicable and were consequently terminated.
British and Icelandic officials have met both in London and in Reykjavik during the past few months to discuss ways of reconciling our interests. We have stated very clearly and on several occasions that we cannot accept any extension of Iceland's fishing limits beyond 12 miles as being compatible with international law. We have also insisted on our right under the 1961 Agreement to refer any dispute to the International Court; and we have made it clear that the Agreement is still in force and cannot be ended unilaterally. It is perfectly true that the Icelandic Government suggested that British vessels might continue to fish, subject to certain unspecified conditions, in certain limited areas for a limited period of time after Iceland had extended her limits to 50 miles. But to negotiate an arrangement on this basis would have been to concede Iceland's right to control the waters out to 50 miles and to jeopardise our future fishing, not only in those waters but elsewhere.
At this time, my Lords, the positions of the two sides appear to be irreconcilable. But we have tried to explain to the Icelandic Government that this is not necessarily the case. We understand, of course, Iceland's considerable economic dependence on fisheries resources, and it is just because of this that we are

1259
ready to recognise that Iceland should have a preferential claim to the resources of the fisheries round her coast. But preference is one thing and monopoly is quite another. We in this country cannot accept that the reasonable needs of Iceland can justify the extinction of our right to continue to fish in areas of the high seas where we have fished for 100 years or more. We have said in particular that the proposed 50-mile limit would include virtually all the fishing grounds in the Icelandic area. The exclusion of our vessels from them would deprive us of between one-fifth and one-quarter of all British landings of such species as cod, haddock and plaice. Between 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the catch of the distant water section of our fleet comes from grounds that would be lost. It is our contention that both the Icelandic and the British interests in these waters, as well as the interests of those other States which have traditionally fished in the region, can be accommodated by means of internationally agreed conservation measures.
As noble Lords will probably know, I am one of the keenest Members of your Lordships' House in favour of the conservation of our fishery stocks, but noble Lords will also recall that the international organisation that is responsible for fishery conservation in the Icelandic area is the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. All the States which have traditionally fished in this area, including the United Kingdom and Iceland, take part in regular annual meetings of the Commission. It was decided at the last meeting of the Commission, in May, 1971, that the condition of the Icelandic cod and haddock stocks was not such as to warrant any special conservation measures. This conclusion was reached on the basis of the latest available scientific advice, which had been agreed internationally by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.
Of course if there are any important changes in the present pattern of fishing, or if there is any new scientific evidence of a decline in the stocks, it will be open to the Icelandic Government, or to any other Government, to raise the question again with the Commission. But we are quite clear that the need to conserve fish stocks cannot be held to justify
1260
the extension of national fishing limits. Where conservation measures are needed they should be taken by international agreement, and in this case through the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. However, my Lords, the existence of an international Commission dealing with fisheries conservation does not inhibit any Government from entering into more restricted discussions involving two or three Governments. For example, there are some types of conservation measures, such as catch limitation, which the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission is not yet empowered to recommend to member Governments, though it is expected that it will shortly be given those powers.
A catch limitation scheme agreed between those few States which traditionally fish in the Icelandic area, and subsequently endorsed by the other members of the Commission, might well be very helpful to the Icelandic situation. We have told the Icelandic Government that we would in principle be ready to negotiate such a scheme, and we could undertake for our own part to limit our catch to the average of the years 1960–69 on the basis that Iceland did not seek to extend her limits beyond 12 miles. We could probably work out the details of such a scheme in such a way as to allow some room for expansion of the Icelandic fishing industry, in recognition, of course, of the special dependence of the Icelandic fleet upon these waters. At the same time the scheme would protect our own essential interests. With this in mind we have sought at all stages the advice of the British Trawlers' Federation, and the Federation was represented during our discussions with the Icelandic Government. Moreover, the possibility of review in the event of a decline in fish stocks backed by positive scientific evidence would always be open. A catch limitation scheme of this kind could attract, surely, the support of all those States who fish in the waters around Iceland, and surely could therefore give Iceland firm guarantees of a kind which unilateral extension of limits in the face of international law could hardly be expected to provide.
We cannot abandon our position that any agreement with Iceland on fisheries conservation must be on the basis that Iceland does not intend to extend limits beyond 12 miles. It is true that a few

1261
States have claimed fisheries jurisdiction beyond 12 miles in recent years, but we have consistently maintained that all such claims are contrary to international law. We recognise, of course, that the question of any special position a coastal State may have, or ought to have, as regards fisheries in adjacent areas of the high seas is one which requires further international consideration. But I submit to your Lordships that the natural forum for any international discussion of this subject, and, indeed, of all questions touching on jurisdiction over the high seas, will be the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference planned for 1973. Preparatory work for this conference is being undertaken by the United Nations Sea Bed Committee and it is at present holding its spring session in New York. That is why we very much regret that the Icelandic Government is considering its own action, which affects all maritime nations to a greater or lesser extent, at a time when the United Nations are looking at these issues in an international context.
I have mentioned our right under the 1961 Agreement between the United Kingdom and Iceland to refer to the International Court any dispute relating to the extension of Icelandic fishing limits beyond 12 miles. Recourse to judicial settlement, in international as in municipal law, is a perfectly amicable means of resolving a dispute when bilateral negotiation seems to offer no immediate prospect of agreement. It is indeed one of the methods which are described as "pacific settlement of disputes" which are enjoined on Iceland and ourselves by Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. I suggest to your Lordships that it is particularly suitable when there is a formal agreement between the two parties which expressly provides for reference to the Court in just such a situation. At this moment in time I am not in a position to tell your Lordships that any decision to refer the dispute to the International Court has been taken, although this option is urgently under study and I can say that a decision is imminent. There is no reason why reference to the Court need necessarily inhibit either party from continuing informal discussions outside the Court in the hope of achieving an agreed solution. Indeed, if we do decide to refer this matter to the Court, we shall hope to conclude interim arrangements to safeguard our fishing in
1262
these waters while the case is before the Court. We have friendly relations with Iceland over a wide variety of matters, and of course we hope that differences on fisheries will not affect those matters at all.
The existence of an agreement between the two Governments providing for reference to the International Court is one feature of the present situation which renders it different from what was called "the cod war" in 1958–61. I hope, therefore, that we can avoid becoming involved in another "cod war" over Iceland's plans to extend her limits from 12 to 50 miles. Can we not discuss, whether inside or outside the courts? Is it not a very much better way of trying to resolve our differences? But I must in this debate make quite clear that we have vital interests to defend in the waters around Iceland and there are very important issues of principle at stake. Therefore we cannot rule out any procedure which may be necessary to preserve those interests and to safeguard those principles.
My Lords, I hope that what I have said is enough to show that there are many difficulties in this complex issue, but also to show the British Government's determination to protect our own interests, while at the same time trying to achieve a solution which will help the very genuine preoccupations of the Icelandic Government. I regret very much that I have not been able to give a more encouraging account to your Lordships to-night or to make any firm announcement at this moment on future policy, because the discussions between ourselves and the Iceland Government are delicate and complex. I would only say that, as fellow-Europeans, both of us heirs to a Nordic tradition, it surely is possible for us together to achieve an agreed and lasting solution.
Lotus BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness resumes her seat. may I ask her a short question? All these endless committees and commissions, the North East Atlantic, the NATO commissions and everything else, have so far produced absolutely no effective measures at all for the conservation of fish, which is, as the noble Baroness agrees, so vital. As they have not done so, is it not rather natural for the Icelandic Government to take unilateral

1263
action to protect its own fisheries, because no effective agreement has yet been reached by any international organisation that I have ever heard of, although there are about six of them?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I really must refute that suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and I am surprised that he has suddenly abandoned his fishermen to take the other view. It is a fact that of the 15 members of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission there are four, including Iceland, which have not yet ratified; but all of them have given notice that they intend to do so.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I would only say in reply to the noble Baroness, finally, that I have not abandoned my fishermen, because none of them fishes near Iceland.

SAINT ANDREW'S, HOVE, CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
WELLINGTON ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

UNITED KINGDOM OIL PIPELINES BILL [H.L.]
Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with, received, and Bills committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past seven o'clock.