Lords Sitting of 6 February 1973

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

GERMAN REPUBLICS: U.N. AND BRITISH RECOGNITION
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 is their attitude towards the admission of Western and Eastern Germany to the United Nations and towards the recognition of Eastern Germany as a sovereign State.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, in the Quadripartite Declaration of November 9, 1972, we said we will support the applications for membership in the United Nations by the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic. Subject to the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers in respect of Berlin and Germany as a whole, Her Majesty's Government recognise that the German Democratic Republic has the full authority of a sovereign State over its internal and external affairs. This does not in any way indicate a change in our position on the special situation in Germany as set out in the NATO communiqué of December 8, 1972.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. While recognising the desire for a union of Germany and hoping that it may come by some synthesis, may I ask whether it is not a fact that, realistically, one now has to accept two separate States? In that situation, is it not very desirable that the British Government should give full support to both Western Germany and Eastern Germany becoming parts of the United Nations, with full recognition of
960
their sovereignty? As I understand that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to diplomatic relations with Eastern Germany, may I also ask this question: does that also mean recognition of her full sovereignty?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thought that in my original reply I had answered the majority of the questions which the noble Lord put to me. Therefore, if I may, I would address myself only to his question on the fact that there is a special situation in Germany, because the German people live in two States. That is why we had the communiqué of December 8, in which we expressed continuing support for the policy of the Federal Republic of Germany to work towards a state of peace in Europe, in which the German people regain their unity through self-determination.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not answered my question. If Her Majesty's Government are ready to enter into diplomatic relations with Eastern Germany, does that also involve a recognition of the sovereignty of Eastern Germany?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, perhaps I should just repeat what I said in my first reply, that:
"Her Majesty's Government recognise that the German Democratic Republic has the full authority of a sovereign State over its internal and external affairs",
although I also said that that did not in any way indicate a change in our position on the special situation set out in the NATO communiqué.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the Minister recall that under Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Charter, it is the purpose of the United Nations
"to develop friendly relations among nations based upon the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples"?
Does my noble friend think that the people of East Germany at present enjoy self-determination?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I do not think that they enjoy it in the terms suggested by my noble friend. But the fact is that the General Relations Treaty, which was signed by the Federal Republic of

961
Germany and the German Democratic Republic on December 21 last year, stated that both countries will be guided by the aims and principles set out in the United Nations Charter and, in particular, by the principle of the sovereign equality of all countries.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness's words about "the full authority of a sovereign State" are the same thing as what the ordinary man would call "recognition". Am I not right in thinking that the last time any of us looked around Her Majesty's Government did not recognise East Germany, and if Her Majesty's Government now recognise it can the House be told when they did so? Or is this an announcement?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I do not know where the noble Lord has been if he has not been looking around for so long, because the fact remains that on December 22 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs sent a telegram to the Foreign Minister of the German Democratic Republic proposing talks, and according to our practice that constituted recognition.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is it not true that this question has very little to do with our attitude, and is there not a legal difficulty in the United Nations itself? When I have heard this question argued there, that is what has emerged.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is perfectly correct, and I felt the best that I could do was to quote what was agreed in the General Relations Treaty.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that in spite of the diplomatic talks and the relations that have now been arrived at between this country and Western Germany, through our entering the European Economic Community, and what has happened between Western Germany and Eastern Germany, what is of paramount importance to the whole of the people of Germany, whether they live in the East or the West, is the removal of that
962
monstrosity, the Berlin Wall, which many of us have been privileged to see?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right. What we arc working for, which was stated in the NATO communiqué, is a freely agreed contractual peace settlement for Germany; and until such a settlement is achieved the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers relating to Berlin and Germany as a whole will continue.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness, while considering the question of East Germany and of its relationship to other nations in the world, inquire what East Germany is prepared to do in order to grant reparation to the victims of Nazi persecution, in the same way as Western Germany did?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: With due respect, my Lords, I think that is another question.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am certain the House welcomes the statement which has been made this afternoon by the noble Baroness. Can she say when we can expect a British Ambassador to be appointed to the G.D.R., and also a representative in London?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, probably in late summer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am sorry to press this point, but the noble Baroness, with her usual ability, has avoided an answer to the question which I put.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BROCKWAY: The question which I put was this: whether, after the ratification of the General Relations Treaty by the Bonn Government, Her Majesty's Government will not only establish diplomatic relations with Eastern Germany but will give it formal recognition by an exchange of Ambassadors. That is the issue.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, in answer to the previous question I said that we hope to exchange Ambassadors in the late summer.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned a telegram of, I think, December 22 which constituted recognition, and said I ought to have been looking around as I did not know about it. Was this telegram public knowledge? Has any announcement that we now recognise East Germany been made before this afternoon?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, indeed, my Lords, even later than that particular date, be-because talks are taking place now. An announcement was made by my right honourable friend in another place on the 29th of last month that an invitation had gone to G.D.R. officials to begin talks in London about the establishment of diplomatic relations, and these talks have been going on since January 23. I understand that they are going quite well.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not accept that many people do not quite understand that an invitation to discuss the establishment of diplomatic relations in itself constitutes recognition? Would not many people expect us, when recognising East Germany, to say, "We recognise East Germany", and not to wrap it up in the form of an invitation to talk about something else which comes afterwards? I imply no criticism of the act of recognition of East Germany, which I welcome, like my noble friend.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure these exchanges across the Floor of the House will have made it quite clear.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, will the noble Baroness forgive me if I put the question to her again in relation to the attitude of East Germany in respect of the victims of Nazi persecution? Many of her own population having been involved, and East Germany not having given anything towards reparations to those who suffered losses, surely she should adopt the policy of West Germany if she wants to become part and parcel of either the United Nations or of any other international body. With the greatest respect, I would ask the noble Baroness to believe that that is relevant to the issue.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend answers that question, may I, on a point of order, ask my noble friends on the Front Bench whether they do not think it is time to move on to the next Question?
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend the Leader of the House is not here at the moment, but I should have thought that this was a question of immense importance and interest. I do not think we have been too long on it, but perhaps one more reply from my noble friend will satisfy the House.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has raised a very large and important question, and I would suggest to him that it is outside the scope of the narrow Question upon the Order Paper.

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY: FUTURE PROJECTS
2.47 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: 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 will make a Statement giving details of airframe and aero-engine projects which are under consideration.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Government are currently considering requests for support for two new civil aircraft projects. These are the Hawker Siddeley HS 146, a quiet 70 to 100-seat feeder liner with reduced takeoff and landing characteristics, and the SD3–30, a 30-seat passenger/freighter aircraft developed from the existing Short Skyvan. The Government have not been asked to consider assistance to any civil aero-engine project in addition to those already in hand. On military projects, I would ask my noble friend to await the publication of the Defence White Paper later this month.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what he has just said amounts to very little? Will he bear in mind that the British aerospace industry is at the present time exporting some £400 million worth of equipment a year, and that if this is to be maintained we shall need a more far-reaching programme? Will my noble friend take into account that in the case of the Harrier, the vertical take-off aircraft, 100 of which have been sold to the United States, none has been ordered by the British Government? Why are we not pursuing a supersonic Harrier? In this field, of couse, we have a lead on the world. Why not follow it up and really get going? I would ask my noble friend to discuss this with his colleagues and to come out with a forthright statement with a view to keeping Britain in the lead. Will he even consider Mark II of the Concorde? Having got the lead we have, should we not follow it up?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I sympathise greatly with my noble friend's wish to keep Britain in the lead in this field but, of course, the Harrier is not a civil aircraft, and it is only on civil aircraft that I can answer at the moment. My noble friend will be aware that, on the civil side, the initiation of new projects is a matter for manufacturers, and that the Government are ready to consider on their merits requests for launching aid for projects which have promising economic prospects. I should add, of course, that discussions are going on at present about prospects for new projects in co-operation with Europe, but these have not reached the stage about which the noble Lord is asking here, which concerns projects which are under consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why he is answering only for civil projects? Does everything in the military field have to be saved up for the Government Defence White Paper? Is he not speaking for the Government as well as for his own Ministry?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I am speaking for the Government. That is why I invited my noble friend to await the publication of the Defence White Paper; and I hope that he will do so.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will my noble friend tell me how far work has proceeded on the development of the Mark II Concorde? I understand that a considerable amount of work has been done and money spent. Is this being considered? It is no use going alone with the Mark I; we must go a stage further. We must show strength and courage to lead the world with this great aircraft.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the fact is that there are at present no proposals before the Government for supersonic development beyond the current Concorde aircraft.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, have the Government had no requests to look into the development of V/STOL aircraft?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; this is still something for the future. We are at present concentrating on a "reduced STOL".
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the whole problem of airport development is vitally bound up with the question of whether V/STOL is developed or not?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that is quite true; but as I have said, we have not yet received proposals for consideration of VTOL aircraft on the civil side.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what "reduced STOL" means?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I should have said RTOL.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say that the initiative for civil aircraft must come from the manufacturers? Surely this is not so in the case of the European airbus; although it is true of the American project. In not having a large capacity civil air transport machine, are we not in danger of allowing the whole situation to get out of control?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in considering international co-operation in this field, it is true that the Government play their part. As I have said, we are

967
at present considering United Kingdom participation in new projects within the next few years. These include a Europlane, a Q RTOL which is a "quiet-reduced Tot". There are also other possibilities of co-operation with America and the use of the RB.211.

MEAT PRICES
2.54 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Qeustion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they recall the Question asked in this House on June 15 last about the steep rise that had taken place in meat prices; whether they also recall that the Ministerial spokesman replied "It is a fact that over the past few weeks prices have risen, but it appears that the price rise is now past its peak"; and whether that hopeful statement has proved to be an accurate one.
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords. The statement proved to be an accurate description of the way in which cattle prices moved over the summer.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I thank the noble Earl more sincerely than ever for admitting that the Government were at fault. Is the noble Earl not aware that there are many different price lists issued by different organisations but that they all show a considerable increase in meat prices since June 15 when the original Question was asked? Is he aware, for example, that a leading supermarket has put up the price of topside, which was 54p per lb. on that date, to 60p per lb. last week? Is he further aware that housewives who have switched from hindquarter joints to the less succulent forequarter joints find that the price of those joints has risen in company with that of the hindquarter joints? Is he further aware that following the Government freeze of November 3 wholesale beef prices rose by 40 per cent. and wholesale lamb and mutton prices by 50 per cent.? Is he still further aware—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD LEATHERLAND: Ah! my Lords, but this is a multipartite question. Is the noble Earl further aware that Ministers are threatening the British housewife with considerable increases in ham and bacon prices and that the Ministry have given orders that prices are to be raised for fresh fish, fish fingers, beefburgers, and many other food products? Does the noble Earl not think that it is about time that the Government took action to halt this rise in food prices "at a stroke"?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think it would be fair to say that the Government are aware of all the points raised by the noble Lord. I would answer the first supplementary question by saying that in fact cattle auction prices at the time he put his original supplementary question were then at their highest point since June 11. They took a dip and did not again reach the level at which they were when the noble Lord tabled his original Question until the autumn. The Government are aware of the rise in prices of all foodstuffs. When the noble Lord says that the prices of the cheaper joints have gone up, this is perfectly true. This, unfortunately, is a question of the law of supply and demand. When the prices of one part of the animal go too high, people then turn to eat the less expensive parts of the animal; and that results in those prices going up. The real problem, as the noble Lord knows, is that there is a world shortage of meat.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl confirm that beef is now rationed by price and that its consumption per head in this country to-day is lower than in the last year of rationing?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, meat is not rationed in any respect. If the noble Lord says that if you cannot afford a thing you cannot buy it. I suppose it could be said that everything in the world is rationed by price in the last analysis. When he says that we are eating less meat, less beef, than we were during the war and up to the end of rationing, I would tell him that the amount of beef now consumed is, in fact, almost the same as in 1954. In fact, total meat consumption per head is now one-third higher than it was in 1953.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would the noble Earl particularise instead of generalising on that point? Is it not a fact that the National Food Survey in the third quarter of last year showed that the consumption of beef was 13 per cent. less than 12 months earlier, that the consumption of lamb and mutton was 18 per cent. less and that of bacon and ham also 18 per cent. less?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that may be so when you use the noble Lord's statistics. The point I was trying to make was in contradiction to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who insinuated that we are now eating less beef, less meat as a whole, than previously. In fact that is not so. We are eating as much meat, as much beef, as before—in fact we are eating more meat.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, the National Food Survey, was carried out under the auspices of the Government. Is the noble Earl suggesting that the Government issued false figures so that I could quote them?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, will the noble Earl clarify his original Answer? He was asked a Question about meat prices. If I heard him correctly, he answered in terms of cattle prices. Housewives do not buy cattle in shops; they buy beef. Will he also clarify a second point? He was clearly understood by my noble friend to claim that the Government forecast had been inaccurate. Some on those Benches heard it as "inaccurate". On these Benches it was heard as "accurate". Will the noble Earl make that quite clear?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I said "accurate". It was an accurate statement of the way in which prices moved over the summer.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, was the answer "cattle prices"?
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, it was cattle prices. But of course the noble Baroness will realise that meat stems from cattle, and therefore meat prices come from cattle prices.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if the word used by the noble Earl was "accurate" and not "inaccurate" as I
970
thought, may I take back all the nice things I have been saying about him? Because I have to ask whether he is aware that his statement on June 15 really was inaccurate. The price of topside beef then was 54p. He said the peak had been passed. Since then it has risen; to 60p per lb. last week, and in the intervening weeks to 62p, 63p and 65p?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is a "Ministerial spokesman" the same animal that used to be called a "Minister"?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether he is. I suppose he is an animal, but I am not quite certain which category he would come into. With regard to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, I apologise if I spoke indistinctly. I should be only too willing for the noble Lord to take back all the nice things he said about me, provided that he undertook to take back the nasty things as well.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, following the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, should we not get a very hefty "joint" off the present Minister?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as the position appears to be deteriorating, can the noble Earl say what plans the Government have to ensure that the poorest in the country will have a fair share when the time comes?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Government are concerned to see that the poorest people in the country are properly looked after. In this respect they have introduced the family income supplement to help the poorest people and increased the old-age pension, and it is one reason why they decided to review it annually instead of biennially.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a pure Consolidation Bill. It consolidates the Television and Sound Broadcasting Acts

971
1964 and 1972 and certain other enactments relating to commercial television and local sound broadcasting services. It will, of course, be referred to the Joint Committee in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

NATIONAL THEATRE AND MUSEUM OF LONDON BILL
3.3 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill provides the second and last instalment of money from the Exchequer for building the National Theatre and equipping the Museum of London. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say a word first about the Museum of London. The capital cost of this most attractive project, between £4 million and £5 million, is shared equally by the City of London, the G.L.C. and the Government and is being financed by loans. The cost of the furnishing of the Museum was treated separately and for this purpose the Government agreed to give a grant of £150,000. The City of London and G.L.C. did not assume any responsibility for this item of expenditure.
Last year the Museum authorities, who are fortunate to have my noble friend Lord Harcourt as their chairman, informed us that the scale and costs of the furnishing and equipment had proved to be much greater than at first estimated. They made a convincing case but we felt that the Government could not go further than to double the sum originally promised. Accordingly the figure in the Bill is now £300,000 in place of £150,000. It may be that to do all that the Museum want to do will cost rather more; if so, I understand that there are prospects that some additional funds from other sources will be forthcoming.
My Lords, the joining together of the collections now at Kensington Palace and at the Guildhall and their display at the Barbican will enrich the City of London with a new and remarkably interesting
972
museum. Together with the theatre, concert-hall and art centre the Museum of London will form part of the most ambitious art complex in the country. I am sure that other large cities will watch to see how successful an arts centre of this size can be in the heart of a district largely deserted in the evening. What will happen there and at what time of day? I hope no effort will be spared, not just to attract some of those who now visit Trafalgar Square, or go to the West End or the South Bank but to win a new kind of user for the whole range of these facilities, including the Museum, that are in the making on the Barbican site. For instance, I would think that the peak activity in all these buildings could well he from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. so that city workers find it convenient to go straight from their office to whatever part of the centre interests them. I should think, for example, that it would be better for the Museum to open from 12 o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock at night rather than during the normal hours of from 10 o'clock until 5 o'clock. I hope, too, that in many large offices within the city's square mile there will be found one or two, or more, enthusiasts who will recruit and run a Barbican centre supporters' club. The more new opportunities that are provided to enjoy the arts the more attention we shall have to pay to the build-up of regular large audiences. There is no doubt that within a large office building, or maybe a Government Department, where a supporter's club is enthusiastically operated one gets the hard core of a regular audience.
Turning now to the National Theatre, this is an older and more costly project; its history goes back a long way. I can remember 50 years ago first meeting Dame Edith Lyttelton and being told by her in that forceful manner that no boy could forget that we were being faithless to the English tradition of drama unless we established a national theatre. Dame Edith handed on the cause to her son, Oliver, and had it not been for the untiring efforts of the late Lord Chandos we should not be debating this Bill to-day.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide extra money so that the buildings on the South Bank may be completed without that skimping of the finishes, which, for little saving in money, has detracted from the quality of many of our post-war

973
public buildings. Your Lordships will recall that the G.L.C. gave the site for the theatre in exchange for the triangular site opposite the Victoria and Albert Museum, and out of their own resources agreed to provide extra parking. The cost of the building itself was divided equally between the G.L.C. and the Government, each undertaking to provide half of £7·5 million. It was thought in 1969 that this sum would be enough, although I must add that in order to keep within the £7½, million certain items were dropped or postponed. This was, I feel, an unfortunate decision. In the event, costs rose faster than anticipated and the South Bank Theatre Board, of which my noble friend Lord Cottesloe is chairman, and I hope he is going to intervene in the debate, came and told us that the building could not be completed, even as a shell, without a large additional sum. The G.L.C., having regard to their responsibility for the site and the extra parking, were unwilling to add more than £350,000 to the half of £7·5 million to which they were already committed. The total now required for building is £9·2 million. The Government have therefore to find £1·35 million towards the additional £1·7 million. But this is not all, because the Board and their architect very properly pointed out that some of the items which in 1969 they had been persuaded to drop from the schedule ought to be reinstated. I agreed with them and in a moment will explain why. Towards the cost of these items we are asking Parliament for £600,000, and therefore we need to provide in the Bill for £1·95 as the final instalment of Government money. Mr. Denys Lasdun the architect (and there is none better) has assured me that he can make a fine building within this maximum figure, and he knows there can be no coming back for more money.
The major item now restored to the schedule is the completing and equipment of the third auditorium. I believe that Sir Max Rayne, who succeeded the late Lord Chandos as chairman of the National Theatre, and Mr. Peter Hall, the director-designate, have in mind that in the smaller of the two large theatres which form the core of the new building there will be seasons of drama on some particular theme or of some particular author's works, while in the larger of these two theatres the company will play their classical repertoire. It follows, or at
974
least it seems so to me, that a third and smaller theatre—say, 200 seats—would not be a fringe frivolity but an absolute necessity. Here all the new techniques in the theatre can be tried out, and as your Lordships know new ideas in this aspect of drama come forward nowadays hot and fast. Obviously, this experimentally equipped theatre is not going to be a cheap project. The electronic and other modern devices which should be provided must be expected to cost a lot of money. With the additional £600,000 it will be possible to do the job well and at the same time not to skimp the equipment and finishes in the rest of the building.
My Lords, it may be that the professional men of the theatre are thinking mostly of new equipment and new ways in which plays can be produced for a live audience, and we all wish them well in keeping the National Theatre ahead in these modern developments. But for my part, I think also of how to televise the exceptional talent in the National Theatre Company in productions that will reach millions of viewers who never, by any stretch of the imagination, could visit the South Bank and see the plays live. Of course one expects that as a result of a larger National Theatre Company having three auditoria at their South Bank base the National Company will do more touring in the Provinces and overseas. But for the very great majority of the public here at home, in the European Community and beyond, the touring of the future will be by television, direct, by cable or on cassettes. For this reason, I gave it as my opinion that the National Theatre building should contain an auditorium which from the first could be used as the equal of the most modern television studio.
The professional artists, who are the recipients of the ever-growing subsidies from the State, I believe realise that as the contributions from the taxpayers increase so the obligation increases to return to the general public more of the fruit of their respective arts, and they are showing that they are ready to do this. We can see already that the link-up between our great national companies performing in the heart of London and the television networks is providing both a means to reach a much larger audience and an additional source of revenue. I

975
do not know how many of your Lordships saw the Independent Television screening of the Glyndebourne production of Verdi's Macbeth. I thought it was marvellous music and well worth doing; but I wondered whether, if it had been produced for television, certain scenes like that concerning the witches would not have come off much better. I have dwelt on this aspect of the National Theatre because I wanted to tell your Lordships that the money which we are asking for in this Bill (and it is a large sum) is not only for the benefit of a small section of the public, but will result in better theatre for all. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Eccles.)
3.16 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining the provisions of this Bill. I am rather surprised that he dealt with it the wrong way round, in what I may describe as rather an Alice Through the Looking Glass manner. I think there was a character in a play by Samuel Beckett—one of our most interesting playwrights—who used to like to read books backwards. Possibly the noble Viscount is such a person. I am afraid that I have a more mundane mind, and I should therefore like to deal with the Bill in the order in which it is printed. Nevertheless, as I say, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining the reasons for it. I think that probably he wanted to lead us into it gently, starting with the small sum first and leading up to the much greater sum. This is an important Bill. It is of course a Money Bill, but it enables us to make some general remarks about these two important institutions, and I am glad that the noble Viscount touched on one or two points in the general arts field.
The noble Viscount paid tribute to one or two people in the early days. I should like to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge, who I am glad to see is here to-day, for the great part she played in these two projects; also to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who was then Chairman of the Arts Council, and to the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, who I am pleased to see is going to speak this afternoon and who is of course a distinguished former Chairman
976
of the Arts Council and the present Chairman of the South Bank Theatre Board. I am sure that we shall all listen with the greatest interest to what he has to say. I also do not forget the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth for the major part that he played in opening up the South Bank. Many of us remember the time when this area was covered with industrial warehouses and are able to compare it with what it is now.
My Lords, I understand, as the noble Viscount has said, that this extra money, nearly £2 million, is to be provided by the Exchequer as the G.L.C. are not willing to give any more. Do the Government really think that this will be enough? The noble Viscount mentioned in connection with the Museum that some private donations were expected; but the much larger sum will be provided to the Theatre, and remembering the astronomical rate of inflation that we have had in recent years, and more particularly, I think, in the last two years, I hope the Government feel that this will be enough. I must also ask whether there will he sufficient funds for decoration, and particularly for the small experimental theatre and studio which the noble Viscount mentioned. I was interested to see that in Clause 1(1) the Bill refers to "the cost of erecting and equipping" as far as the theatre is concerned, but subsection (2), relating to the Museum of London, refers to "the cost of furnishing and equipping". I wonder why the word "furnishing" has been omitted from subsection (1).
The noble Viscount also referred to the old site at South Kensington, originally chosen for the Theatre in the 1930s. I remember very well the outcry it caused. People said, I think rightly, that this was quite the wrong place for a theatre to be—that is, in museum land. Nevertheless, the foundation stone was laid and I believe it is still there behind the hoardings. I should like to ask the Government what plans they have for this site, because it would be a pity if the property developers got hold of it. They always seem to like island sites and we do not want to wake up one morning and find another Centre Point shooting up. The site must also be a very valuable one, and perhaps the noble Viscount would tell us whether there is some money coming from it.

977
I should like to raise the question of the Old Vic Theatre after the National Theatre Company leave for the South Bank. I believe the Royal Shakespeare Company proposes to go to the Barbican in 1977, and presumably would not need to use the Old Vic as an extra theatre. It has been suggested that the Old Vic should be used by the English Stage Company, who I think need a larger theatre than the Royal Court in Sloane Square, where they are doing such splendid work. Although I realise that this is not the direct responsibility of the Government, I should like to ask the Minister what ideas he has for the future of the Old Vic and also of the Young Vic—because we really must have something worthy of the memory of that great lady, Lilian Bayliss.
I believe it is generally accepted everywhere that London has the best theatre in the world. It must be the responsibility of all concerned to see that our National Theatre has as fine a home as we can possibly give it. Much more needs to be done to make the South Bank less arid. The buildings look beautiful from across the river, either in the winter through the grisaille which Monet loved so much, or on summer nights when the lights are shining; but it can also be a very forbidding place, particularly in the winter. Buildings are, of course, built for people. I am glad to see that the G.L.C. are planning to plant more trees, particularly between the Queen Elizabeth Hall and the Hayward Gallery, which is at present a very barren prospect. I welcome this and I am also glad to see that the National Theatre will be surrounded eventually by trees, shrubs and grass. Of course, what we need to achieve in the future is something more like the river at Twickenham, rather than a concrete desert.
Turning to the Museum of London, which is to be part of the Barbican scheme, as the noble Viscount said, I understand that the intention is to move the London Museum from Kensington Palace and combine it with the contents of the Guildhall Museum. It is surely right that the Guildhall Museum should be in the City itself and that it should be part of a new centre. The Museum was housed originally in Lancaster House, and after the War was transferred to Kensington
978
Palace—a transfer for which His late Majesty, King George VI, very generously and readily gave permission. I should like to ask the noble Viscount what future is planned for these rooms in Kensington Palace after the Museum has moved. Here again, I very much hope that the extra sum in the Bill will be sufficient. I am glad to hear of the generous donations that have been promised and which were mentioned by the noble Viscount. We need, and must have, a Museum which is worthy of our great capital city.
3.26 p.m.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed, as Chairman of the Board which is building the National Theatre on the South Bank—a Board that will draw upon the moneys which this Bill will make available—to welcome the Bill and to thank my noble friend Lord Eccles for all that he has done to provide this most welcome subvention.
The National Theatre Act 1969 made available for this purpose—a purpose of which many aspects, such as the design of the auditoriums, and so on, are highly controversial, but which is politically a non-controversial, all-Party purpose—a sum of £3¾ million from the Exchequer, it having been agreed by the Greater London Council that they should find an equal sum to make up the total of £7½,million, which at that time was the estimated cost of the project. The Greater London Council most generously undertook also, as my noble friend said, to provide the superb site on the South Bank opposite Somerset House and alongside Waterloo Bridge—a site of which the present value is estimated at £7 million—in exchange for the old National Theatre freehold site in South Kensington, the size and value of which can be no more than a fraction of those of the South Bank site.
I will not go back into the early history of this project, which began in 1848. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has referred to one or two of the people who were actively concerned in putting this on the map, perhaps for the Record I should say that the whole of the South Bank complex, of which the National Theatre is the culmination and completion, owes more to Sir Isaac Hayward than to any other single individual; and it would be quite wrong

979
that we should debate this subject without his name being mentioned.
The long history of this project was slightly touched on in the Second Reading debate in 1969, and a fascinating story it is. But it was not until 1962 that the Government finally took the plunge and set up the two boards necessary to bring the National Theatre project to fruition. These were the National Theatre Board, with Oliver Lyttelton (later the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos) as its Chairman, to create and manage a National Theatre Company, and the South Bank Theatre Board, to design and build a National Theatre, of which Board I was appointed Chairman. The latter was, by any ordinary rules, a peculiar assignment—a Board with no funds and two paymasters: the Government and the London County Council, each of which require us to prove everything at every stage. In these circumstances it is not surprising that it took some little time for the plans to mature—and if they had matured more quickly the building would have cost a great deal less. But the circumstances were unusual and it took some little time to secure the approvals that were necessary. It was not until 1969 that we were in a position to go to tender.
It was at that time estimated by our architect that the building would cost £7½ million, and a rather curious comedy ensued. The figure of £7½million was the estimate of costs at tender stage, informally accepted by both the Government and the G.L.C. But neither had made a firm commitment when there was a change of management in the Greater London Council, and the new Leader, Mr. Desmond Plummer (as he then was) found his Council faced with an appalling load of capital commitments. He had, moreover, a chairman of his Finance Committee who openly avowed his belief that the whole project was more expensive than could possibly be justified, and was out to kill it. In these circumstances, the G.L.C. might well have contracted out altogether, and we are immensely indebted to Sir Desmond that he stood firm and carried his Council with him in making the commitment to find the G.L.C.'s half-share, £3¾ million. But he could do so only on the basis that that was a maximum
980
figure—"£3¾ million, and not a penny more", as the phrase ran, "whatever the ultimate cost might be".
It was then the Government's turn and they said, in effect, "We always knew that over a four-year period of building there would be price rises that would increase the cost as between tenders and completion. We were quite prepared to accept our share of the increase. But fair is fair, and if the G.L.C. will not do so, neither will we". My Board were therefore faced with the necessity, at the final stage of design, of planning within a figure of £7½ million, not at tender stage but at completion. It was necessary to create, within the estimated figure of £7½ million, a reserve for inflation that it was agreed between the Government and the G.L.C. ought to amount to £600,000, and the designs had to be cut down by that amount.
It was a dreadful task to have to impose on our architect, Mr. Denys Lasdun, at that late stage. It was necessary to jettison the small experimental theatre that was an essential part of the requirement. It was necessary to jettison the restaurant, no less essential, though the design still allowed for their inclusion at a later stage if that were found possible. It was necessary to cut down on the quality of the finishes, and to omit some important items of the stage equipment. There was much anxious heart-burning, but the deed was done. Tenders were obtained that sought the prospective total of cost, after allowing the reserve of £600,000 for inflation, within the ceiling figure of £7½ million. The contract was let, and on November 3, 1969, Lord Chandos and I, with Miss Jennie Lee (as she then was) and Mr. Plummer started the work. We could not cut the first sod on a site where there was no turf to cut, so we shovelled cement into some shuttering as a symbolic act and set the work going.
Since that rather memorable day, three years ago, there has been good progress. The theatre, as your Lordships may see from Waterloo Bridge, or across the river from the Victoria Embankment in front of Somerset House, is now two-thirds built, and the work goes forward well. But your Lordships know also that there has been, and continues to be, a violent inflation in building costs, inflation at a

981
rate that no one could have foreseen in 1969. The sums provided for at that time are now quite insufficient. That the building should be left incomplete and without a roof is quite unthinkable, and we had to go to the Government and tell them that to be certain of completing the existing contracts it might in the event be necessary to provide an additional sum of possibly as much as £1,700,000.
My noble friend Lord Eccles, after discussions with the G.L.C., agreed that the Government would, with a contribution from the G.L.C., make available the sum necessary. But he went further, as he has told the House; and we are particularly indebted to him and to the Government for providing in the legislation now before the House funds that will suffice, in addition, for the reinstatement of the experimental or studio theatre (though not to the full extent originally planned), and for the equipment of the restaurant; for improving the finishes of the building, which will effect savings in maintenance cost; and for incorporating important stage equipment that will much increase the scope for production to the best modern standards. This will also save substantially on production costs and, no doubt, in the future, on the annual subsidy to the National Theatre Company.
This great National Theatre complex, with an arena auditorium to seat nearly 1,200 and a proscenium auditorium for 900, with a studio theatre, workshops and paint shops, dressing rooms and offices, and all the rest of it, will be completed next year, though it will not, I think, be formally opened until 1975 after a period for the National Theatre Company to "run it in". Those theatrical experts who have seen the building and the designs have, without exception, expressed enthusiasm for them. Theatrical ideas and techniques are constantly changing, and I warned my Board at their first meeting that we had better recognise from the outset that whatever we do would he wrong; and there will no doubt be criticisms when the building is completed and handed over for use to the National Theatre Company. But I can confidently assure your Lordships that this will be a theatre complex that is unique in scale and in quality, and altogether
982
worthy of the finest dramatic company in this country, and that is to say in the world.
3.37 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, this is a matter which is entirely non-controversial. I have been looking carefully around the House and I do not see a barbarian in sight, and I do not think anyone is going to object to the additional money that we are being asked to agree to. I want to thank and congratulate the Paymaster General and the Government on doing what was the only civilised thing to be done at this stage in the proceedings. I suggest that when the National Theatre opens, if we want it to start on a really exuberant and merry note we might commission some young playwright to produce a musical comedy setting out the whole story of what we have all gone through in getting this project off the ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, has told us quite a lot this afternoon. We are indebted to his stubborn and devoted tenacity in holding on, often in a difficult situation. Listening carefully to him one might have discovered or detected that a certain element of blackmail operated throughout this whole business, because no one in his senses believed that we were going to build the National Theatre for £7½ million, particularly when the Government of the day were asked to adjust their contribution from £3¼ million at the point of contract to £3¾ million at the point of completion. This was—to use a term which an old collier friend of mine was very fond of using—an "impossi-bloody-bility".
Obviously, we were already working in a market where prices were rising. I had responsibility as a Minister at the time, and I did not think that it was a sensible contract, such that one could stand up to say that we could be definitely committed to a price at the point of completion. Our Board was put to endless trouble, and in order to meet the figure every kind of device was used in cutting back on all kinds of things that they should not have been asked to cut back on. But of course, as the Government of the day have discovered, the London County Council under present management are "tough cookies" to deal with. We had simply to accept that they

983
were willing to pay their share at point of completion but not at point of contract; and the only thing to do was to get started, because we knew that after all the long delays if we got to a certain point it would be impossible for us to leave this as a kind of ghost in mid-air. So I think we can look forward now with confidence to this project's going ahead.
I should like to add just this. We have inherited a great deal from the past and there is surely something so squalid and so blind if any one generation says, "Well, it was all right for past generations"—who also had their poverty problems and their employment problems and all kinds of other problems—" to have given this nation great institutions and great buildings, but don't ask us to do it!" Surely, we are doing no more than a modest share in making certain that there will be a great national theatre in London. I hope, too, that there is going to be a great opera house in Edinburgh, but I do not want to widen this debate.
There are two things I should like to add before I resume my seat. One is that this is an act of faith in the future. We must make it as easy as possible—not an obstacle race—when people want to go to the South Bank. One of the schemes I cared about a great deal we have here the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, who at that time was Leader of the London County Council—was designed to ensure that one should be spared the ordeal (I wonder how many of your Lordships have experienced it) of trying to cross from the North to the South Bank in open air. What do you think it does when you have had a "hairdo"? What do you think it does if you are lame? What do you think it does if you are taking your best girl out for the evening and you want to put up a good show? This is unthinkable. I made myself a nuisance with my friends of the Greater London Council and with my colleagues in the Government because I wanted a travelator across the Thames, from which one could have travelled from Charing Cross or Trafalgar Square. You did not need to bring your car in; you could do the whole journey without going into the open air at all. If a travelator is too expensive, at least I wanted to see the possibility of getting
984
a covered way. It could be made very elegant and glamorous, and would make it so much easier for all kinds of people of modest incomes, not only to get to the South Bank—and that is difficult enough, but you try getting away! It is all very well if you have a driver, but without one a car is a bit of a problem. When we are looking ahead we must remember that we are making it too difficult for too many people to enjoy those great national assets. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, when he speaks about the importance of projecting great occasions on television. Of course that is important, but there is no substitute for the living concert hall and for the living theatre. We want to do both.
In addition to making it easier for people to participate, I would also hope that the Government will pursue the hint that was given this afternoon by Lord Eccles when he was speaking about opening hours of the Museum of London. Not only the Museum of London, but all our great galleries and museums, ought to have a look at the hours at which they open and close. Far too often as soon as father is coming home from work, and the children are coming home from school, we close the places. We know why this was so in the past. This is one of my failures, I confess. We had an experiment with the Victoria and Albert Museum. We got it open on a Sunday morning—and I tell your Lordships this. The Treasury was no difficulty; the Treasury was willing to give the money at that time; I had no difficulty with the senior members of the unions involved, and Pope-Hennessy eagerly co-operated. The public were turning up in great numbers on a Sunday morning. But the custodians said, after an experimental period of six months, that they were not willing to go on working on a Sunday morning any longer.
I say just this to your Lordships. We cannot run a society if all of us refuse to work at the weekends. We must keep our railways going and our hospitals going; all kinds of projects must be kept going. We must come to terms with those who are working in our great museums and galleries because they must accommodate themselves more to the true needs of the public. They can have "double time" if they want. So far as the Victoria

985
and Albert is concerned, we suggested we could close it on a Monday because it is at the weekend, Saturday and Sunday, when most people have most opportunity to go to museums or galleries and the theatre. However, my Lords, I do not want to speak at any greater length. I just want to say that this is a wonderful story. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, has been fairly discreet; he told you quite a lot, and there is a great deal more we could tell. But the important point is that nothing can now stop the National Theatre from going ahead. I congratulate the Government on the money they are producing to-day, and look forward to the further money which I hope we will all agree in producing, because it is nonsense to say that we can give a final figure at this moment.
3.47 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than two or three minutes. I should like to add my congratulations to those that have been expressed already in your Lordships' House on the courage and imagination which have enabled the noble Viscount to grasp this particular nettle and provide the extra amount of finance desirable. But we have heard from the lips of the Minister and also from the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, a harrowing story of a continual fight against the ravages of inflation. I do not wish to expatiate at length on the general economics of the subject, which was sufficiently discussed in your Lordships' House yesterday, but I have a modest suggestion which I would urge the noble Viscount to put to his friends at the Treasury; namely, that when they say, "Not a penny more. We grant you this increase and no more", they should add the words, "at constant prices"; alternatively, that there should be constructed a special index number of prices relevant to Government undertakings of this kind, and that Treasury grants should be given in real terms having regard to that index. What is the conceivable objection to that? The very hoary one that no Government are prepared to legislate on the basis of their own incompetence. I ask your Lordships whether the experience of the last 15 years justifies that attitude.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, much as I might be tempted
986
to follow the noble Lord, all I wish to do is to set the Record right. It is not correct that the South Bank site was made available by the Greater London Council. It was made available by the London County Council, and I am very familiar with the circumstances because I was the Chairman of its Finance Committee at the time, and the Leader of the Council then was the late Lord Latham. That was when the site at the South Bank became available in exchange for the site in South Kensington, a site of very much smaller value which the London County Council agreed to take in exchange.
3.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, for setting me right. Of course it was the London County Council and not the Greater London Council who did the exchange over the site. Going backwards (I know that that is not how the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, likes one to take these matters) and answering my noble friend Lord Robbins, I agree with him in general about having some phrase such as "at constant prices", but in this particular case we arc near the end of the contract. I cross-questioned Mr. Lasdun rather closely and I think—nothing is certain in this world—that £1·7 million to complete the building is not an unreasonable figure. Of course, if my noble friend Lord Robbins would like to murmur his doctrine at the Treasury in relation to the new British Library I should be exceedingly grateful. Large sums of money are needed for that project, tied to a cost price index.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the way he spoke about this Bill. So far as I know, there is sufficient money to complete the South Bank Theatre satisfactorily and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, said, to go a long way towards completing the equipment of this small experimental theatre. We shall have to see how we get on, but at any rate this will make it possible to achieve most of what is needed.
Turning to the South Kensington site, of course a decision about that site rests with the owners; that is, the G.L.C., who accepted that triangle. I think it is a plague pit, and it is not very attractive to build on a graveyard of victims, however long ago the plague was. My own

987
personal hope is that that open space opposite the Victoria and Albert will remain an open space, but clearly this is not a decision for the Government.
The future of the Old Vic also is not a decision for the Government. It is in the hands of the governors and, as the noble Lord said, they arc discussing with the English Stage Company a proposal that that company should take over this theatre which has, for anyone interested in the London drama, a great emotional appeal—and none of us would like to see it "fold up". If the terms of such a proposition are settled, then I suppose they will have to go to the Arts Council and discuss the financial consequences of whatever arrangement they fix up. It does not lie with the Government to decide this, but we shall watch with great interest what comes forward.
I heartily agree with the noble Lord that the South Bank needs more greenery, but my experience of growing trees in London is that you have to be patient because they grow very slowly. I think the G.L.C. now has a very good planting programme and within a reasonable number of years the South Bank ought to look much more agreeable than it does now. Still on the subject of the South Bank, I noted with interest what the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, said about making it easier to travel from one side of the river to the other, and I suppose the G.L.C. are the right people to talk to about a covered way. Anyhow, it is a good suggestion and I will see whether it can be taken up.
I also agree with the noble Baroness that the hours of opening of museums, and indeed the opening times of a great many of our artistic activities, should be looked into, because the habits of the public are changing. The extension of the public who would like to participate in these experiences has brought in people who are essentially workers and therefore the old hours, which were really designed for people who did not have a great deal to do in the middle of the day, may need looking at. I will keep that suggestion in mind, too, although of course it is for the Trustees of the various institutions and for the theatre managers to decide when they open their museums or put on their performances.
988
Finally, there is the problem of Kensington Palace. Kensington Palace is a Royal palace and, as the noble Lord said, it was the late King who graciously offered it to the London Museum, and when the London Museum moves from there it will be for Her Majesty to decide what should happen to those rooms. I understand that the total of the collections at Kensington Palace is considerably too great for them to be shown in the Barbican. Therefore, there is likely to be a quite important residue. My noble friend Lord Harcourt and his board are now considering this problem. When they have formulated some proposals, no doubt they will acquaint us with them but the final decision as to what happens to those rooms in Kensington Palace rests with Her Majesty.
Before I close I should like to say that I am sorry I forgot to say a word about Sir "Ike" Hayward. I knew him very well; when I was Minister of Works he was the Leader of the L.C.C. and we had many extremely fruitful forms of co-operation.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.

OVERSEAS PENSIONS BILL [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LTSTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Superannuation schemes as respects certain overseas service and service with the Central Office of the Overseas Audit Department]:
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert:
"(e) persons who have served in—

(i) the Aden Protectorate Government Guards, the Federal National Guard and the South Arabian Police Force;

989

(ii) the Aden Protectorate Levies, the Federal Regular Army and the South Arabian Army;

(iii) the Hadhrami Beduin Legion;

(iv) the Aden Police Force (including that part of the Force known as the Armed Police)."

The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 1, which is tabled in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, my noble friend Lord Beswick and myself. All of us have had something to do with the position of those who have served our country in former colonial territories and we have joined together to table an Amendment which bears on a particular area in which there is a special concern, and in my view a special moral obligation on Her Majesty's Government; and once again when I say, "Her Majesty's Government" I mean us, the British. It was as much a responsibility of the Government of which I was a member, and which I freely admit did not deal with this problem, as it is of the present Government. I should like to explain the purpose of this Amendment and of No. 3, which in the event I may not need to move, though in my opinion it was advisable to put it on the Marshalled List.
The Amendment to Clause 2 specifically sets out the names of those for whom, in very simple terms, I want to see the British Government take the responsibility of paying pensions. Amendment No. 3 is essentially to ensure that there is no bar on the Government in paying pensions to people such as those mentioned in Amendment No. 1 on the grounds that they are indigenous to their country and are not expatriate servants of the Crown. We discussed on Second Reading this problem of our treatment of those who served us in South Arabia, and on that occasion I sensed a good deal of sympathy among your Lordships in regard to those for whom people like the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, who was High Commissioner right up to the end of our withdrawal, and myself, who was involved in South Arabia, are concerned—a group of people who served the British Crown and who served the country but who to-day, so far as we know, receive no pensions at all.
The noble Baroness, in her usual sympathetic way, explained on Second
990
Reading that there were powers in the Bill to give pensions to those whom I have mentioned. I should be grateful if, when she replies, she would confirm that. She went on to say that consideration was being given to this problem but that she could not prejudge what might emerge. Our purpose to-day is to strengthen any feelings the noble Baroness may have in this matter by getting the feeling of your Lordships on the subject and by deploying the case as we see it. It is not at the moment my intention to recommend the Committee to divide on this series of Amendments. We shall see how we get on. If we have a particularly inept reply from the noble Baroness we may wish to divide, but as I have never yet heard an inept reply from her it is unlikely that that will happen.
I wish briefly—on this subject the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, may wish to expand—to recapitulate the position when we withdrew from South Arabia. This uniquely, if one excludes Palestine, was a situation in which we went without any agreement with the successor Government other than to go. The negotiations, in which I participated, were conducted very late in the day in difficult circumstances and there was no agreement on the part of the successor Government to pay pensions, except a tacit agreement in relation to certain initial aid which we gave for, I think, the first six months after we left. Subsequently it became apparent that a number of indigenous civil servants had received no pensions from the successor Government. Again, I stress that that Government was one of a very different nature from those which normally succeeded British rule in former Colonies. These local civil servants were not receiving their pensions while expatriate civil servants—British, Indian and others—were. The Government finally came to the view that they should pick up the responsibility and they decided in general principle that they would apply this on a much wider level throughout the former colonial territories. This meant a major readjustment and it has led, and will continue to lead, to complicated negotiations.
I do not wish to raise the position of civil servants; I want to sneak briefly about those who served in particular armed forces, and I will, for the benefit

991
of the Committee, read the names mentioned in Amendment No. 1:
"… persons who have served in … the Aden Protectorate Government Guards, the Federal National Guard and the South Arabian Police Force … the Aden Protectorate Levies, the Federal Regular Army and the South Arabian Army … the Hadhrami Beduin Legion … the Aden Police Force (including that part of the Force known as the Armed Police)."
I do this because a number of these forces are in different categories. Some were in a different relationship to the British authorities and some served in territories under different constitutional arrangements; but all of them served British policy over a number of years and, with very rare and rather special exceptions, served with great loyalty and at great cost to themselves. Indeed, the figures which I have suggest that between 1964 and 1967—the period of the emergency only, and there were other casualties before—there were no fewer than 81 killed in Aden State and the Protectorates, and 368 injured. There were of course a number of widows and dependent children. Thus a question which I ask immediately is how far pensions are being paid to these widows, because I believe that a number were transferred back to Aden and are a charge on Aden funds. If the noble Baroness does not have this information now, perhaps she will let me know the answer later.
I also wish to speak briefly about the position of those who served us, and I will illustrate my point by referring to two officers, both of whom I know and both of whom were in senior positions. The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, will have known them a great deal better than I did. To-day both are virtually penniless. One is Nasir Buraik Awlaoi, who has recently written to an expatriate officer. I emphasise that for those who served during the emergency, some of whom were wounded and carried great personal risk, we are deeply concerned and there are feelings of guilt, which I share, about our failure to look after these people. This particular officer had to flee and take refuge in Saudi Arabia. From the day of his retirement in October, 1967, up to now he has not received a single payment, not one installment of a pension, relative to this service under the British Crown.
Another officer, Sharif Haider, who at one time commanded the Federal National Guard, played a crucial part at a time when there was a very unfortunate mutiny. I think the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, can confirm that it arose more from nerves and confusion than from anything else; it occurred just after the six-day war when some British soldiers were killed. Sharif Haider himself played a major part at personal risk in restoring order, despite some hostility. He also had to flee from Aden and he has written saying:
"…I lost a homeland, a career, much property and life-long friends."
He has submitted
"…that…the decision (to pay pensions to South Arabian civil servants) … is … discriminatory …"
in regard to those who served the Crown in the Armed Forces. I regretfully agree, though I supported that decision. It is worth pointing out that some officers were formerly officials and that there was some movement between the Civil Service and the Armed Forces.
I will not go into detail on each of these particular categories, but I should like to mention the fact that the Aden Police Force are, I believe, already covered as civil servants, but the Armed Police are not because of their part in the panic mutiny—if I understand the position correctly. If so, I shall be interested to know the particular arguments used for this discrimination. It is important to realise that it is exceedingly difficult to expect complete loyalty in a situation when everybody knows that the protecting Power is going, whatever happens, and that there may or may not be a Government formed by a former terrorist body. The amazing thing is the amount of loyalty that was shown.
In this connection, I should like to make a special reference to the Hadhrami Beduin Legion, a force which was commanded by a retired British officer, Colonel Johnson, whom I know and who is deeply concerned with regard to the promises he was authorised to make to the officers who served under him. All the senior officers and the majority of the junior officers in the Hadhrami Beduin Legion were dismissed from the force because there was little in the way of jobs of work and because many of them were not acceptable to the new régime.
Few, if any, have been able to get work at all. It is difficult to get information as to what happens to them, but there are some who are making a bare living, either in exile or by tending goats in the desert, and some are completely penniless. The hardship and suffering which these ex-officers are experiencing is something that I would ask your Lordships to recognise. They have suffered indignities and shame which affect them even more, as a result of their loyalty to us.
A particular point I would make with regard to the Hadhrami Beduin Legion—although my Amendment relates to all the forces—is that it was a Foreign Office private Army. It was financed, controlled and administered completely by us. It remained a Foreign Office force until the day we were withdrawn. It was never part of the Federal forces and the officers swore allegiance to our Sovereign. Their loyalty in all cases, until the end, was complete, in spite of provocation, severe pressure and outside influences. The forces in the former Aden Protectorates were in a rather privileged position because they were part of the British Forces under the command of the R.A.F.
I believe that we have a moral obligation to these people. They have served us and, furthermore, we made promises to them. There is one point which the former Commanding Officer of the Hadhrami Beduin Legion has said will ever be on his conscience, and that is that before the British withdrew he assured all the Hadhrami Beduin Legion officers that their pension rights under the terms of their contract would he respected. He did so with full authority from Aden. I believe that it is up to us, to the British Government, but also to us here to ensure that we fulfil our obligations. I have already said that I do not believe that the British record in regard to the withdrawal from Empire has been good in relation to consideration and generosity to those who served us. In many ways we have had not only a fine record in Empire but also a fine record in the way that we withdrew. But there are black spots, and this is a particularly mean and unworthy one. I would urge the Government, in the light of the support which I hope we may get in the course of this debate, despite the many difficulties and despite the arguments that I know the noble Baroness may find it necessary to have with her
994
colleagues in the Treasury and in other Departments, to seek to rectify a wrong which should give us all a feeling of guilt. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
LORD TREVELYAN: I rise to support as strongly as possible what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said and at the same time also to try to work upon the noble Baroness's feelings. I need not go into anything in great detail because the noble Lord has given a very full and completely accurate account of the facts, all of which 1 know to be entirely justified. It was realised at the time that the civil pensions were sanctioned that it was impossible in 1967 to expect an agreement from the South Arabians on the payment of pensions. There is no doubt at all that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made the best possible agreement that anybody could have made in those circumstances.
One must remember that before independence we were paying two-thirds of the South Arabian budget from British funds. We promised aid for only six months. The money just was not there to pay the pensions. I am glad to say that two or three years ago the Government agreed to pay the pensions of the civil servants and the question arises: "Why were the military officers not included at that time?" I had assumed that the question of past loyalty was not under consideration. The great majority of the military officers and civil servants in Aden were astonishingly loyal right to the end. If your Lordships had been there during those last six months and had been in that disintegrating situation with the British pulling out, you would have expected a considerable degree of reinsurance, because the people had to safeguard their future. But in fact there was remarkably little of it. As I have said, the loyalty we had right to the end from all classes of officers, civil and military was astonishing.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to the one case—the mutiny of the Armed Police—which he suggests may have had some bearing on the Government's decision not to give the military pensions. I can confirm that that was caused by panic. The Armed Police in Crater had their wives and families there, and they got it into their heads that the British were going to attack them.

995
That was just one instance of the very peculiar circumstances. Now, at this distance of time, it is something which should be excused and we should not forget the loyalty in very unfavourable circumstances of all those who served us. Whatever the differences in the terms of employment, there is no question that the pensions of the officers of the Armed Forces came under the same enactments and were fixed on the same principles—if not exactly at the same rates—as for the civil officers.
Then comes the question of why, if it was not a question of loyalty, the Government were prepared to pay the civil but not the military pensions. I have not been able to find out the reason for that decision. Perhaps it was because it was thought at the time that many of our officers were being employed by the independent Government, and that that Government were paying military pensions. My understanding now is that no pensions, or practically no pensions, are being paid, and that those that are being paid are only at very reduced rates. None of those concerned, I gather, is now serving in the South Arabian Forces—the South Yemeni Forces, as they now are. Many have retired, and many have suffered for political reasons. Some of them, as your Lordships have heard to-day, have had to go outside the country. This certainly is a new fact which may not have been understood at the time when this matter was formally considered by the Government.
I should like, finally, to emphasise very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said. I feel that we have a very serious obligation in this matter, to pay the pensions of our old servants, and it is a disgrace that those old servants, through no fault of their own, are now in many cases being left penniless. I therefore hope that the Government will seriously reconsider this matter and will do what surely is plain justice.
LORD GRIDLEY: It is with the greatest pleasure that I associate myself with this Amendment on which my name is coupled with that of the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton, Lord Trevelyan and Lord Beswick. I would rather speak this evening in your Lordships' House as a former overseas officer of the Colonial Service. I went through a certain amount
996
of nostalgia this week-end down in Somerset reading an account from the Director of Establishments, Aden and South Arabia, of the circumstances in connection with the British withdrawal. He gave me a most moving account of what occurred at that time, and he of course, like myself, would be most concerned, being an overseas officer, that justice should be done to our indigenous Government servants.
I never served in Aden, but I used to pass down the Red Sea on my journeys to Malaya, and at the southern extremity there we had Aden, which seemed to guard all the vicinity of that area, allowing our ships to pass to the Far East and to Australia and New Zealand. Our association with that territory seems to have extended to something like 129 years. From my experience, and also from the experience of this Director of Establishments, Aden and South Arabia, I know that as a result of the long association between Britain and its indigenous peoples overseas a great deal of affection has grown up between us. It is remarkable that even to-day we former officers receive letters from indigenous people overseas, showing great interest in this country and what it is doing and putting to some of us the problems which exist in the countries that are now independent.
In the case of the Aden Protectorate, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has made a speech in the most moving terms this evening in support of this Amendment, and I think it is of great significance that noble Lords in all parts of the House, I am sure, have complete sympathy with the terms of the Amendment. If I may for a moment try to draw a parallel from handing over to people who might have been terrorist in organisation, I cannot conceive of anything worse to be endured by those people who were left behind to carry out the responsibility of maintaining law and order—and those are people mentioned in this Amendment—than the onerous duties which were forced upon them. I cannot conceive that they acted in any other manner than out of exceptional bravery and loyalty to the Crown. I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, would admit the evacuation of Aden was an absolute success.
As I know so well, when indigenous people support the British they are the

997
targets subsequently to be—I will not say, "bumped off", but to be dealt with; and it is the people who gave of their loyalty to the Crown in such circumstances who are mentioned in the Amendment. It is not for us here to question why it was not possible to have an orderly withdrawal, to have a public officer's agreement. Circumstances dictate our actions, and I am quite sure that this must have been one of the most difficult decisions that faced the British Government who were in control at the time. I feel, in supporting this Amendment, that if we can get justice to-day for these men who have served us so well we shall have discharged our obligations with honour, and I therefore commend this Amendment to your Lordships.
LORD SEGAL: I should like to add a few words from these Benches in support of the Amendment so movingly put forward by the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. As one who served in Aden during the early clays of the war, I had many opportunities of close contact with the Aden Protectorate Levies. Their loyalty was absolutely unquestioned. They were a magnificent body of men. They served in the Hadhrami, often under conditions of extreme hardship. I cannot help feeling that a heavy moral obligation rests on the Government to recognise the loyalty of these troops, often under conditions of extreme distress. Many of these loyal servants of the Crown would appear to have been made victims of retaliatory action, if not of actual vindictiveness, by the successor Government. One cannot use words strong enough to say that the Government stand on a very weak footing indeed if they attempt to shuffle out of this obligation, this heavy obligation, as mentioned in this particular Amendment. I have no hesitation whatever in giving my fullest support to the admirable case made out by the noble Lord, Leader of the Opposition.
LORD MILVERTON: I should have been content to say very briefly indeed how strongly I support the Amendment and everything that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and others have said, but I had a letter from a former Director of Establishments, Aden and South Arabia, asking me particularly to take part ill this
998
debate. He said that with my wide experience of colonial territories, and so forth, I must assedly—and he was right—be deeply sympathetic to this kind of proposal which has been made. There are one or two things that I should like to say incidentally, to which he especially drew my attention. He told me that this matter had first of all been raised by a group of British officers who felt that it was an indignity to our good name that these sections of local forces should have been so treated, apparently without realisation of the debt that we owed them.
All South Arabian Government pensions ceased when British financial aid to Southern Yemen stopped in mid-1968. The British Government immediately started to pay the pensions of expatriate pensioners. A long campaign was then started by former colleagues of the indigenous pensioners to urge the British Government to assume responsibility for other pensions earned by service in South Arabia. This campaign met with some success in 1970, but the success was severely partial; only Civil Service and civil police pensioners benefited. When this became clear, it was considered that it would not be right to rest content with a situation in which many who had loyally served in the security forces were deprived of the retirement benefits to which they were morally and otherwise entitled. As we know, senior British officers of the Federal and Protectorate forces, and of the civil administration in South Arabia, wrote to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary some months ago urging that the unfair discrimination between pensioners of the Civil Service and of the security forces should be ended. I need not go into any further detail. With one's experience it would be possible to speak for some time of what we owe to these people and to such forces as those. I can only say that I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in his Amendment, and I do not believe that anybody in this House would dream of disagreeing.
4.32 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: The Committee and the noble Baroness will not wish me, nor need me, to underline the fact that there is very strong feeling on all sides. I am bound to tell the noble Baroness that she will have to argue very persuasively indeed, if she is unable to accept

999
the Amendment, for us not to press this Amendment this afternoon. For my part, I cannot sec that we can do other than accept it, or get the most serious assurances from the noble Baroness. I have not heard, and I doubt whether the noble Baroness can tell us, any point affecting the principle of what we are asking. I have not heard any suggestion of an argument affecting the principle—except the factor that at one time there was this difficulty in the Crater, but that was not pressed when we discussed it last time. Therefore, there seems to be no question of principle involved.
I cannot think that it is a matter of the sum of money involved. My understanding is that some two or three hundred individuals will be vitally concerned. Therefore, I cannot think that it will be a matter of finance. If it is not finance and not principle, I cannot see how the British Government can do other than accept the Amendment. We shall certainly listen carefully and eagerly to what the noble Baroness has to tell us. I hope that she realises that unless she can give us very satisfactory assurances, there will be—and I hope that I can speak for all sides of the Committee—a very strong feeling that we should press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD BOURNE: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and others in their Amendment. I knew these people who are specified in Amendment No. 1. I have met them all, including the Hadhrami Beduin Legion, which is a very small force indeed, and incidentally is hundreds of miles from Aden. I have no more to say about that except that I wonder whether the parallel cases are dealt with under this Amendment. It seems to me that Amendment No. 3 might cover the situation more widely. I am thinking, for example, of the police officers who were in Zanzibar shortly after the British evacuation and, so far as I know, were drawing, or were eligible to draw, British service pensions. I wonder, for example, whether we dealt with them, or parallel cases all over Africa. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether that Amendment covers the position slightly better. In any case, I support Amendment No. 1.
4.36 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: We have certainly had a unanimous debate on the main Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. He said that he would also like at the same time to discuss Amendment No. 3. Perhaps I could give him the assurance that there is nothing in this Bill, or in any Act, which would preclude the payment of benefits to citizens of the overseas countries in which they served provided that the policy decision is taken, and in that case the third Amendment is not necessary.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, or any other noble Lords who spoke, needed to convince me of the great concern with which they view this difference of treatment between those who were civilian officers and those who were security or military officers. I again read very carefully the Second Reading debate, because at that time the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, spoke with considerable emotion and, I may say, with great fairness. He said himself that at the time, in 1970, he felt a mistake had been made when the decision was taken to pay only the civilian officers and not the South Arabian security forces. I said at that time that of course we would look at the whole matter again in every possible respect, because, as the noble Lord and many others said, the South Yemen Government has never accepted that it is a successor to the Government of the Federation of South Arabia, and they have, we feel wrongly, never accepted full responsibility for South Arabian expatriates and local pensions. Therefore, we tried to consider why it was that there was this distinction between the civilians and the South Arabian Armed Forces and the Aden Armed Police.
I have listened very carefully to every speech that has been made. However, I must say to the Committee that while we have given this matter enormous consideration and thought, we do not feel, after studying the papers, that it would be wise to take the decision in the way suggested this afternoon; and I should like to say why. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will no doubt recall that this question was under consideration for some 18 months before, in March, 1970, the previous Government announced that, in view of the exceptional nature of the

1001
South Arabia situation, loan advances should be paid to the indigenous former civil servants. He would know better than anyone else—and I was sorry that he did not tell us this, or perhaps he did not feel able to tell us—the considerations behind the decision to make that distinction at that time, because I suspect it was very much a question of principle. This particular course having been taken then of course it is obvious that repercussions would follow. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, it is perfectly true that indeed some of the Zanzibar civil servants are also being paid as a corollary of what is being done here.
I should like to say that if the concession suggested here were now extended to cover the former local security forces, the Government would be taking an action which has not been taken in the case of any other former dependancy. It is important to stress this aspect, and I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, when he said that he would like to hear whether a point of principle is involved in this matter. To extend the loan advance scheme in the case of South Yemen would inevitably create a precedent for other public service agreements, however different the circumstances. The Bill which we are to-day discussing provides for the Government to assume responsibility for the payment of pensions to former expatriate civil servants who served in certain Dependencies before their independence. The Government are assuming responsibility neither for the pensions of indigenous ex-civil servants nor for those of indigenous members of the local security forces of former Dependencies, although these gave loyal and devoted service and in some cases fought beside British troops during the Second World War.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and other noble Lords, raised the question of loyalty. While it may be true that there were some who were not loyal, perhaps owing—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—to nerves and confusion, and that there was what he called a "panic mutiny", and while I quite accept that, for instance, the Hadhrami Beduin Legion, who were not even there at the time, were very loyal indeed, one cannot make any distinction at all. If such payments were made they would have to be to all or to none, and I do not
1002
think that after three years' passage of time—or even that it would have been so at the time of these events—it would be possible to prove that some were loyal and some were not.
The real reason for not accepting the Amendment is that neither the Overseas Development Administration nor the Ministry of Defence have any evidence—and we have sought everywhere to find it—of Her Majesty's Government's paying pensions to indigenous officers of local security forces who were not affiliated to the British Army after independence, and no such pensions have ever at any time been carried on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Vote. Therefore I feel, in essence, that it would be wrong to grant one former Colony concessions which have been withheld from other territories, and I should have thought it was that reason which really caused the Government of which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was a distinguished member to make a distinction in terms of these payments. It is because of the very close study that we have made of the issues involved that I believe the former Government were right. Therefore, in spite of the strong pleas that have been made, I think it only right to tell the Committee that we have gone into the matter with the greatest care, but I feel justified in asking the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: It goes without saying that I am extremely disappointed in the noble Baroness's reply. Indeed, the only merit that I can find in it—and it is a merit which I would expect of her—is that she has been frank in just saying, "No". In one respect, I detected some slight confusion in her argument. It appeared as if she thought we were seeking to differentiate between those who were involved in the mutiny. I do not want the Committee to be distracted by this point, because it was an extremely small mutiny and, in fact, so far as the Federal Guard were concerned, was stopped by the officer who is now penniless. It happened in circumstances which I think we can largely discount. What bothered me most in the noble Baroness's speech was the fact that she said that the reason for not granting what we are asking for is that there is no precedent. That is precisely the situation in which we have found ourselves all along.

1003
I am not sure that there was not an implication in the noble Baroness's speech that I had been less than frank with the Committee in not giving a reason for the distinction. Honestly, I cannot remember the details, and furthermore I was only too thankful that we had been able to get pensions for the civil servants. I shall be equally frank and say—and although the noble Baroness may say that I was less than frank earlier, I shall be very frank now—that I did not propose to endanger getting pensions for civil servants by pressing the case for the armed forces. Also, I did not know how officers in the armed forces had been treated. I assumed that the Federal Army had in fact continued to serve the new Government. It is only lately that I have heard the extent of the mistreatment from which they suffered.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
It was not my intention to divide the Committee, partly because I should not have been surprised if the Amendment were defective in certain respects, and secondly, because I do not necessarily regard this Bill as an appropriate medium for such an Amendment. But this is the only opportunity that is open to us. So, in the light of what I believe to be the feeling of the Committee, I shall not beg leave to withdraw the Amendment but shall press it to a Division, in order to get an expression of that feeling. Thereafter it will be possible for the Government to decide how they are to deal with this matter in legislation.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, B.

Archibald, L.

Greenway, L.

Popplewell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Raglan, L.

Arwyn, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rusholme, L.

Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Gridley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

Haig, E.

Segal, L.

Bourne, L.

Hale, L.

Serota, B.

Brockway, L.

Hall, V.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hankey, L.

Shinwell, L.

Burntwood, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Slater, L.

Caccia, L.

Hoy, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Chalfont, L.

Jacques, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Kindersley, L.

Strang, L.

Chorley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Clwyd, L.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, B.

Colyton, L.

Listowel, E.

Tangley, L.

Courtown, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tayfor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Trevelyn, L. [Teller.]

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Evans of Hunaershall, L.

Milverton, L.

Wahton, L.

Falkland, V.

Molson, L.

White, B.

Faringdon, L.

Monson, L.

Williamson, L.

Fortescue, E.

Moyle, L.

Willis, L.

Fulton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Exeter, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Albemarle, E.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gowrie, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brecon, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Semphill, Ly.

Camoys, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stamp, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Tanlaw, L.

Dundee, E.

Luke, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Elles, B.

Meston, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Young, B.

Clause 3 [Provisions supplementary to sections 1 and 2]:
4.55 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY LORD GRIDLEY moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) Nothing in subsection (4) of this section shall affect pensions which have been, or which may be, granted to any persons who have been, and have ceased to be, in the public service of any overseas territory as defined in subsection (3) of section 1 above before the appointed day, or to the widows, children or dependants of such persons, which arc paid in accordance with the law under which they were granted, or if granted after the appointed day, in accordance with the law in force immediately before that day, or in either case in accordance with any law made thereafter which is not less favourable."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment may I draw attention to the fact that the powers of overseas Governments to amend pensions legislation are qualified by what are known as public officers' agreements. As your Lordships know, public officers' agreements were undertakings entered into between overseas territories and Her Majesty's Government, and guaranteed certain conditions respecting the payment of pensions when those territories assumed independence. In the case of the Amendment we were considering previously, it was not possible to enter into a public officers' agreement with the Colony of Aden. In the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill on December 21 last, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, stated:
"Subsection (4) of the clause allows schemes to be introduced with retrospective effect. Such provisions are already a feature of every overseas pensions scheme for which we propose to assume liability and to administer under Clause 1".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21/12/72, col. 1215.]
The object of the Amendment that I am moving is to secure that no scheme introduced by Her Majesty's Government under subsection (4) contains any feature which would contravene public officers' agreements. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I rise simply to say that I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give a rather more forthcoming reply on this Amendment than she did on the last occasion. I think we are only asking that the "i's" should be dotted and the "t's" crossed, and no money will follow from this. I hope very much that the assurances will be forthcoming.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, for moving this Amendment and for quoting what I said on Second Reading on the question of retrospection. But, alas!, he stopped at the words "Clause 1". If he reads on he will see that I said:
"I should like to assure the House that we shall consult pensioners' representatives on all major issues; indeed my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development has already consulted them… and they were assured that retrospection will he used only when it will be of advantage to those concerned—for example, to cover the gap between agreement on changes and the actual introduction of a scheme".
I am glad to have this opportunity to reaffirm what I said then.
As to this Amendment itself, because we have accepted the "no detriment" principle which is contained in the overseas provision and as advocated by the House of Commons Select Committee on Overseas Aid, we do not consider it is necessary to have an Amendment exactly of this kind. We cannot have an exact equivalent because the existing overseas laws provide for the pensions which Britain will be seeking to take over to be paid initially in the currency of the overseas country concerned; and of course this arrangement cannot continue once Britain has assumed responsibility for the pensions. They will then be paid in sterling; and I am advised that the proposed Amendment to Clause 3 would possibly impede the necessary modifications in this respect. I once more confirm the fact that we are sure there will he no "worse off" provisions in the future. I should have liked to accept the Amendment, and I looked at it carefully; but I would ask the noble Lord, on the assurance I have given, to withdraw the Amendment. May I at the same time, although it is out of order, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on a famous victory?
LORD GRIDLEY: I tabled this Amendment purely as an exploratory and probing one and to make quite sure that the conditions of overseas service pensioners would not be prejudiced in any way by what we have always understood to be the public officers' agreements. Just before I give the noble Baroness some pleasure by saying that I intend to withdraw the Amendment, I would say, in

1007
connection with these public officers' agreements, that before we handed over these territories we did come into contact with our local government and with the Heads of our Government in the territories in which we were serving. There were many negotiations with the Government, of whatever political colour it was, in power in Britain. These public officers' agreements are of value to us since they are the basis on which pensions were created. In view of the noble Baroness's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
5.3 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 3.
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
Saving in respect of citizenship
"( ) Nothing in this or any other Act shall prevent the Secretary of State from making schemes under this Act whereby provision is made with respect to pensions, allowances or gratuities which may be paid to persons who were citizens of the overseas territory in which they served and in right of which service the pension, allowance or gratuity is paid."
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 3 standing in my name. I do so partly to establish that in relation to this particular Amendment the assurance given by the noble Baroness was as I understood it to be; namely, that there is nothing in this Bill to prevent payment of pensions to citizens of overseas territories. I understood her to say that. At the same time I should like to take the opportunity of thanking her for her congratulations on the last Amendment. Since this Amendment bears on it, perhaps I may say that it was quite clear there was an overwhelming expression of opinion in the Committee on this particular subject. I expect the Government will wish to have a closer look at the Amendment to see whether it is satisfactorily drafted, but I hope that there will be no question of reversing the decision in principle.
Perhaps it is worth while pointing out that there are two aspects—and this is where the present Amendment applies. There is the wider aspect, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, referred, and also the particular aspect that South
1008
Arabia is sui generis. I believe that some noble Lords sitting in certain parts of the House either abstained or voted against the last Amendment because it was feared that it was creating too wide a precedent. We argue that South Arabia is a very special case, with only Palestine similar to it. As this Amendment makes clear, one is concerned with our moral responsibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said, the Bill does not prevent a certain amount of additional justice from being done to people to whom, for some reason or another, in the past we have not done justice. They include a number who carried out quasi-Government activities and with whom, again, we have been concerned and to whom, as we face the realities of our responsibility, we are now to be a little more generous. I do not wish to pursue this point further. If I get an assurance from the noble Baroness confirming that I understood her aright in her remarks on an earlier Amendment, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I should like to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that this Amendment is unnecessary. If he refers to Clause 1 he will see that it already gives Her Majesty's Government adequate power to assume responsibility for any overseas pension by agreement with the overseas Government concerned. The noble Lord referred again to the first Amendment which was carried in a Vote by this House. He is right in saying that it is not correctly drafted. I did not myself refer to this point because what really mattered was the question of principle; but I understand that it may need to be drafted differently.
I will convey what was the sense of this Committee to my right honourable friend and explain the circumstances; but I should not like to leave this point—and the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, referred to it—without saying that I think it important to consider the repercussions of any decision such as this. It is not always possible to point out at a particular time what repercussions there are likely to be—and quite soon. But I would say to noble Lords that in considering this afterwards I hope it will be borne in mind that one cannot isolate a territory in this way. Once the question of principle has been decided, there

1009
can be repercussions all over the world. One must remember those territories to which this particular benefit has not been given in the past. I would only say again to the noble Lord that the Amendment is not necessary because the powers are in the Bill.
LORD SHACKLETON: I feel that one of the advantages of the debate is that perhaps we have been able to do a little educating. I reiterate the unique circumstances that applied in South Arabia—possibly paralleled only in Palestine. I hope that the Government will not simply ride along on the precedent. It may be that they will have to face wider consequences. I hope that they will look at the special circumstances in South Arabia in the light of (and the noble Baroness did not refer to this) the definite promises made. This is a matter in which our honour is at stake. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
5.9 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. It is eminently straightforward but is nevertheless an important one for the fishing industry because it seeks to relax the time limits which Parliament originally imposed on certain enabling powers by which the industry is supported. The principal effect will be on powers which relate to the supply of funds for vessel loans by the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board, on the grant aiding of research and development between these two bodies and on the operating subsidies. All these have, in one form or another, been a permanent feature of the assistance given to the industry for the last two decades or so, irrespective of which Party has been in Office. To that extent they have been extremely familiar to many noble Lords and especially, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, who took such a prominent part in developing
1010
them when he was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. All we are now doing is to ensure that these powers, which otherwise would have run out at the end of 1972 or in the course of the present year, will continue to be available during 1973 and thereafter, subject only in this latter case to Parliamentary approval of the necessary subordinate legislation.
My Lords, the principle of a limited extension of this sort is very similar to that contained in the Scheme which covers fishing vessel grants and which was approved by your Lordships last week. As my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pointed out during the Second Reading debate in another place—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will agree—it is extremely difficult to forecast the fortunes of the fishing industry in the future, subject as it is to so many unpredictable factors. This Bill permits freedom of action by allowing the support which otherwise would have to be stopped to be continued. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Earl Ferrers.)
5.12 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for introducing this Bill in such a precise and concise fashion. The Bill does exactly what the noble Earl said that it would do. It extends certain provisions from the original legislation and makes provision for the fishing industry in respect of the supply of boats and of grants. In that I concur. There is one other matter that we might mention. I do not call for a reply from the Minister in respect of it, but while Governments of both Parties have done their best to look after the fishing industry I am bound to record the concern felt by housewives about the present prices of fish. These prices have continued to soar over a long period and it seems to me that the industry, along with the Ministry, might have a look at the sale of fish to see whether there is some way in which the industry might be prepared to, if not control, at least restrict prices, so we should not be denying this very fine food to the poorest section of the community. I do not ask the noble Earl to say that

1011
this can be done, but I suggest that the Ministry might have consultations with the industry to see whether something can be done in this direction. Having said that, my Lords, may I say that I am delighted to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for what he has said. He is quite right to express concern about the rising cost of food. Indeed, earlier this afternoon we had a "go" over rising beef prices and now the noble Lord has mentioned rising fish prices. Of course the Government are concerned about this matter. I would only mention one or two points which are relevant. Fish, being a prime product, is, of course, influenced by the cost levels of other types of food. There have been smaller landings of fish recently and this has helped to increase the price, and the bulk of fresh fish comes to the consumer via the auction markets which are subject to the law of supply and demand. I take the noble Lord's point about the increasing price of fish and I can assure him that the Government are concerned about it, as they are about other increases in food prices which have occurred. Equally, I know that the noble Lord will recognise that the fishing industry is a dangerous and hazardous occupation, and for a number of years the fishermen have not had a great return from the capital invested. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
5.15 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is in very similar terms to that introduced in the last Session by my noble friend Lord Tangley who piloted it through with his usual skill and ability. It was endorsed by this House, but I am afraid it met an untimely death elsewhere. In introducing this Bill to-day and asking your Lordships to give it a Second Reading, I will
1012
not go through all the details once more because it is a collection of oddments, tidying up many matters which needed tidying up, and in a way it is not in good order because it is preparatory to a Consolidation Bill.
If I may, I will pick out the salient points and mention them this evening. The first is in respect of Clause 4. As Master of the Rolls, it is for me to determine the fee which is paid by every solicitor in order to be able to practice—for his practising certificate. Owing to inflation and the falling value of money, the limit which has been put on the fee hitherto is quite out of date. In 1965 there was power to increase the fee up to a maximum of £10. It has been increased to that sum, but it is very desirable that it should he increased further. The fee covers a multitude of activities which the Law Society undertake on behalf of the profession.
As your Lordships will realise, the number of those entering the profession, of those to be educated and taught their law, is increasing greatly. I may say that there are many young ladies entering the profession and they are very useful. The expenses on the education side are increasing greatly. Apart from that, on the professional purposes side the disciplinary committees need strengthening as complaints are made from time to time against individual solicitors. It is important that the profession should be able to expand if need be and not cut down its activities; and it is important that it should be possible for that to be done now. That is why I ask that the limit of £20 be removed and that, as Master of the Rolls, I may determine, with the concurrence of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chief Justice what is a proper fee. Perhaps I may say that this is not such a burden to the profession as it might appear because, of course, the sum involved may be deducted for the purposes of taxation.
May I now turn to what is a new provision in the Bill. It is the provision whereby arrangements should be made requiring solicitors to insure against liability for negligence, and that proper provision should be made for insurance purposes. Dishonesty on the part of the solicitor is covered by another fund with

1013
which I shall deal later. Dishonesty is also dealt with by disciplinary proceedings, but negligence and liability for negligence is dealt with by the ordinary courts of law.
Unfortunately, in all professions people make mistakes, and the courts have to enforce liability for negligence. We have had of late in the courts a series of matters where, for instance, a widow, or an injured person who has suffered an accident and requires compensation, instructs solicitors to carry the case through, but the solicitors are so busy and so short staffed that it gets delayed. In quite a number of cases lately we have felt bound to strike out the actions because they have been so long delayed by the solicitors. So the unfortunate widow or the injured person has not a remedy against the employer or the negligent person. The complaint is really against the solicitor who delayed too long. That unfortunate person gets compensation from the solicitor in every case, I believe, but to cover it the solicitor must he insured against negligence. A large number do insure at the moment; but some do not. It ought to be the same in all professions. Barristers are now having to insure. The provision in Clause 7 is to enable the Law Society to insist as a condition of practising that the solicitor should be insured.
It is a matter of consideration for the moment as to what form the arrangements should take. It is suggested, on the one hand, that there should he an organisation within the Society itself, a kind of mutual insurance. Another suggestion is that there should be a block insurance whereby the Society, on behalf of all solicitors, insures with Lloyds, or one of the great companies. In any event, every solicitor should be insured with a proper company. Plans have not been worked out as to what is best, but what is proposed in Clause 7 is that power should be taken, and arrangements should be made, whereby liability for professional negligence—and that is the main object—should be covered by insurance.
I now turn to two other matters in the Bill in regard to the very rare cases when a solicitor has been guilty of dishonesty, or not keeping proper accounts, or of professional misconduct of some
1014
kind or other. To deal with cases of that kind we have at the moment the Disciplinary Committee. As Master of the Rolls, I appoint the members of that Disciplinary Committee. People at large think that that committee is just a committee of the Law Society. They think that the Law Society are prosecutors and judges in the same cause. They are quite wrong: it is a perfectly independent committee. As I say, the members are appointed by the Master of the Rolls. In the old days I used to appear before them, and a better and fairer tribunal I have never known. Now the proposal is that instead of being called a disciplinary committee it should be called a disciplinary tribunal so as to show that it is independent. Then, instead of the members being appointed just from the Council of the Law Society, which is a limited body of 60 or 70 solicitors, the Master of the Rolls should be able to select them from the whole body of solicitors, up to 15. Those provisions will, I hope, improve the tribunal in the eyes of the public at large. That is an important aspect of dealing with discipline.
The other aspect to which I would draw the attention of your Lordships is the Compensation Fund, available in cases—there are very few of them—where solicitors go off with the funds or are dishonest in some way. How is compensation to be afforded? This has always been a compensation fund: not an indemnity fund which has to cover everything in point of law, but a compensation fund in which the compensation is discretionary. That is built up by contributions which have been limited to £10 a head. One of the provisions of the Bill seeks to remove that limitation, again for the same reasons; that is, the differing values of money and to keep the fund solvent. We should have liked, and other people would like, it to be a real indemnity fund, but that cannot be done at present. There might be a claim for £1 million, which the fund could not meet. So while retaining its basis as a Compensation Fund, the first proposal I would put before your Lordships is to remove the limit of £10.
The other important matter on this Compensation Fund is one to which my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner drew attention last time. He said: "The Law Society may refuse, without giving

1015
any rhyme or reason, to make compensation to a person who has lost money through a solicitor's dishonesty." He took the case of Mr. Hinds, who was charged in regard to the burglary at Maples. Mr. Hinds, in order to get defended, put a lot of money into the hands of a solicitor who made off with it, and Mr. Hinds was not defended properly. He never received compensation for the money which the solicitor had. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner said on the last occasion: "Reasons ought to be given, so that if compensation is not made the individual should know." After consideration, that is agreed to be the right thing, and in subsection (12) of Clause 11 provision is made for reasons to be given if an application for compensation is rejected. This is very proper. For instance, there was one case where someone wanted compensation because a stepmother had lent some money to her stepson, and it was a question whether it was really in the course of the practice or whether it was a private loan. So, I assure your Lordships that, if reasons are given, it is not only of value to the individuals refused but also, as I see it, to the courts. If the reasons given were unfounded, or if wrong considerations were taken into account or the right considerations were not taken into account, then the decision could he reviewed in a court of law. I hope that that amendment will achieve what my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner sought.
My Lords, those are the main matters in this Bill, but there are two or three matters which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor raised last time of interest to solicitors. Previously, in order to be a commissioner for oaths they had to pay a fee, and obtain all sorts of certificates, and so on, to qualify. As a small but useful provision, all solicitors will automatically in future be commissioners for oaths without having to go through all those formalities.
There are a number of other small matters. I ought to mention rather an interesting repeal. In the early Acts it was provided that it could be made compulsory for all solicitors to join the Law Society. I am told that that was proposed in 1939, the idea being that there could be a ballot of solicitors after the
1016
War to see whether or no more than two-thirds of them would want to make membership compulsory. Power was taken in that respect in Section 75 of the principal Act. But that is completely out of date; no one has ever sought to enforce it, nor do they seek to enforce it now. As a tidying-up matter, it has been proposed amongst the various amendments that that Section 75 should be repealed.
Those are the main matters in this Bill. There are small matters such as the removing of disqualifications on aliens to become solicitors. As long as they pass the examinations they can now be admitted. Various other small tidying-up matters were before your Lordships during the last Session and were all endorsed. I hope for the sake of all concerned that they will be acceptable to your Lordships and also to Members of another place. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Denning.)
5.31 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will he grateful to the noble and learned Lord for reminding us in such clear terms of the provisions of a Bill which Your Lordships have already fully considered. It was before this House in March of last year and passed through all its stages here. Unfortunately, it did not go through the appropriate stages in another place, and therefore met with a rather untimely decease. At this stage I cannot help musing noon what seemed to be the very wise words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that while it is not for us to criticise the proceedings in another place, this is a Bill that I think all of us very much want to see on the Statute Book. I should like, if I may, to associate myself from this side of your Lordships' House with that wish. I hope that on this occasion the Bill meets with better fortune and finds its place as part of our Statute legislation. After all, if one looks at the substance of what we are debating this afternoon, does it not come to this: Here is a great profession, the proper conduct and well-being of which is fundamental to our liberties and to that principle of the rule of law which is so utterly indispensable to our democracy. Possibly one of the slightly disquieting features of the present scene is the tendency on the part of some persons to

1017
think that the law can on occasions be flouted. That I would personally regard as altogether deplorable, and a Bill of this sort which goes to maintain and support the high traditions of our legal professions—I use the word professions with an "s"—is of the utmost importance in the very challenging scene of to-day's events.
The profession has voluntarily, under the terms of this Bill, submitted itself to a most draconian system of control. This is a system, set out in the Schedule, which is not designed to protect the profession but to protect those who may have recourse to it, in order to utilise its services against malpractice in the profession. We should be grateful to the profession for so willingly putting upon itself that heavy and effective system of control, and I hope that is a consideration which may be borne in mind when this Bill proceeds, as I hope after to-day it will, having received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House, to its further stages.
If I may, I should like once more (having done it on a previous occasion) to thank the Law Society for placing in my hands extremely valuable material to enable me to make what I hope I may say is a thorough study of the present Bill. I would not seek, nor did the noble and learned Lord, except in somewhat summary form, to traverse again all the provisions of this Bill, because your Lordships have already considered them. In the few remarks that I propose to make to your Lorclships' House I should like, if I may, to seek to address myself purely to the changes in the terms of the Bill that have been made since it was last before your Lordships. It is "an ill wind that blows nobody any good", and perhaps we may think ourselves fortunate in that since the Bill was last before this House some useful and important changes have been made. I should like to dwell for a moment or so upon those changes and to put one or two questions to the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill so very clearly to your Lordships.
First, the old Clause 7 has gone. That was a useful clause which dealt with the position of solicitors as justices of the peace. It has been removed, as I understand it, because it has been transferred to another Bill. It is not dead—on the contrary, it is very much alive—but it
1018
has changed its lodging. In place of the old Clause 7 is the new Clause 7, which at present appears in this Bill, and to which the noble and learned Lord made reference—the provision which requires that there shall be, if I may use general terms, a satisfactory and comprehensive system of insurance in operation to cover what in Clause 7 is described as "professional liability of solicitors". I will not trouble your Lordships with details of the four separate schemes which are proposed. I would have no kind of criticism of them at all. It has been my lot on very many occasions in the past to study these policies and to give thought to the position of solicitors against whom claims are brought.
I would, if I may, put to the noble and learned Lord just one question from these Benches. The liability against which the solicitor is called upon in one of the four alternative methods to see that he is properly insured is described baldly as "professional liability". I suppose one could argue that it is a professional liability of a solicitor to pay the rent of the office in which he carries on his practice or to pay the salary of his employees, whom he employs for the purpose of his practice: that is in a sense a professional liability. Obviously that is not intended, I should have thought, to be covered by the terms of Clause 7; and possibly the noble and learned Lord may feel it desirable to give some further thought to those words. They do not appear for the first time in this Bill. I believe they made an earlier appearance in a Bill of 1957. Therefore they are words not of first arrival here and have no doubt been carefully scanned and considered on previous occasions. However, there is the problem I pose: is that language wholly suitable for the purpose for which it is embodied in Clause 7 of this Bill?
A person who resorts to a solicitor and with regard to whose business the solicitor acts negligently in one of the dozens of different ways in which it is awfully difficult sometimes to avoid being negligent with very little blame, but simply because the law is so extremely difficult and complex that it is difficult always to avoid making decisions which on subsequent review could be said to be open to criticism—such a person therefore has a claim against a solicitor in respect of,

1019
for example, negligence (and I suppose it would clearly include dishonesty on the part of his servants or his employees) and can say to himself, "I insist on having, and I am sure that if I establish my claim in the courts I shall receive, the full amount of the loss I have sustained through this breach of duty on behalf of my solicitor." That I should have thought was an extremely wise provision. Most solicitors are at this moment insured with reputable insurance companies against that type of negligence. Nevertheless, this over-riding clause which places this general liability on solicitors, and makes proper insurance a condition of their obtaining a practising certificate, is to be greatly welcomed.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner is very anxious about the provision of Clause 11 which deals with compensation funds. When the Bill was last before your Lordships' House my noble and learned friend addressed a very powerful plea to your Lordships that the Compensation Fund should be an indemnity fund. A difficulty in the way of that proposal was stressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. It is difficult to conceive of a compensation fund of such magnitude that it could provide adequate relief in the case of an enormous loss. Solicitors deal with matters of the greatest importance, and the advice they give frequently has the result of influencing enormous movements of money one way or the other. There may be serious loss. I always find the arguments of my noble and learned friend extremely convincing, but on this occasion he did not carry me with him.
The provisions of Clause 11 are extremely generously drafted. The claimant must be a person who either has suffered, or is likely to suffer, loss as the result of dishonesty or failure to account. That is generous. The claimant who has suffered loss need not be in a position to be able conclusively to establish beyond all doubt in a court that he has sustained that loss. There is a discretion in the Society to award him compensation out of the funds even if he may not feel inclined to go to the full length of seeking to establish his claim in a court, and seek payment to the full amount of it. It is a compromise situation and I would have thought it to be extremely useful.
1020
I believe history has shown it to be extremely useful in helping people who otherwise, if they had to establish that claim, might have felt hesitation about making the attempt. There is great value in a compensation fund in the form in which it is embodied in Clause 11 of the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord reminded us that one of the changes in Clause 11 is the introduction of subsection (12)—in effect a compromise. One of the proposals made in an article read out by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner was that at least the Society should be compelled to state what its reasons were if it refused to make a grant out of the Compensation Fund. Subsection (12) now requires them so to do. I had it in mind to ask the noble and learned Lord—and he has almost answered in advance my question—what the legal effect of subsection (12) would be. It has always been said that where there is a discretion vested in a public body, or officer, he must exercise that discretion, and in exercising the discretion take into account that which is relevant to the exercise of his discretion, and must exclude matters which could not reasonably be properly taken into account.
The classic example is given that he must not decide against an applicant because he does not like the colour of the applicant's hair. The result of including subsection (12) in Clause 11 is that if it should appear in the reasons which now have to be given that the Society has taken into account matters which are improper and irrelevant to the exercise of discretion, then if an application were made to the Divisional Court, the Court could order mandamus, and order the Society to address itself to the question of discretion, limiting its consideration to those matters which could properly form the grounds for the exercise of a discretion. I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord nodding his head—I think I have interpreted that correctly.
I do not want to detain your Lordships much longer. The only other major change is the annulment of Section 5 of the Solicitors' Act 1957, to which the noble and learned Lord made reference; namely, the provision, as he said, that solicitors must join the Law Society if, on a ballot, it is shown that two-thirds

1021
of the profession are in favour of their so doing. Three-quarters of the profession already belong to the Society, but no ballot has taken place. There is no feeling in the profession that there should be this compulsory membership, and Section 75 of the 1957 Act is, to all intents and purposes, a dead letter. Speaking as one who is outside the profession, I should be perfectly happy and content to accept the profession's view about that. I am ready and content to see that section go.
I would ask the noble and learned Lord to put before the House, if he has this at his disposal, knowledge of the origin of that section. What was the idea behind it? I gather it found its way into legislation as early as 1941, and has lain as a dead letter ever since. Prima facie there does not seem to be a great deal of point in making membership of the Society compulsory. I wondered whether the noble and learned Lord could tell us what motive might have been in the minds of those who originally conjured up and inserted the clause into our legislation. That might assist us to form a more confident view as to the proposal now to annul that section.
One other section deals with costs in the case of an order being made with regard to the employment of a clerk. It slightly enlarges the power of the court to grant costs, but I do not think I need trouble your Lordships by referring to that. Those are the changes. The Bill as it stands is a very good one indeed. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner may feel more content now that we have subsection (12) of Clause 11. I hope that your Lordships may feel not too great a difficulty in giving the Bill a Second Reading to-day.
5.48 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I hesitated to intervene in this debate in the elevated and distinguished company of the other noble Lords on the list of speakers, but, being a solicitor who has been in practice for something like forty years, it might be forgiveable if I made one or two comments. The points I want to make are those that have been made to me by the British Legal Association. I should like to make it plain that I am not speaking here to-night as a spokesman
1022
for that Association. They have raised some questions on this Bill which are worthy of consideration and on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, may be able to give us some reassurance when he comes to reply. Curiously enough, nearly all the points, except two, that I want to refer to are the very matters to which the noble and learned Lord has drawn particular attention. Perhaps I might dispose of two points to which he has not referred. The first concerns Clause 3—and this is not a contentious matter. It is a question whether the wording of this clause, and in particular subsection (3), is the best that can be achieved. This subsection makes it possible for a solicitor to apply to the Law Society for the removal of his name from the roll. It also provides that a solicitor who has had his name removed in that way on application can subsequently apply to the Society to have it reinstated on the roll.
Subsection (3) goes on to provide:
"An appeal shall lie to the Master of the Rolls against any refusal or neglect by the Society to comply with an application…"
of either kind. Then it says:
"On an appeal under this subsection the Master of the Rolls may"
do various things. He may:
"(a) confirm the refusal; or
(b) direct the Society to comply with the application on payment of the fee by the applicant; or
(c) direct the Society not to comply with the application; or
(d) make such other order as he may think fit."
I am only raising the question as to whether all that is really necessary. Would not the matter be completely and satisfactorily dealt with if that final part of subsection (3) were to read in this way:
"On an appeal under this subsection the Master of the Rolls may make such order as he may think fit"?
I put that forward only as a tidying up of the measure. There may be some objection to it, but if there is no objection I suggest it would be an improvement.
May I turn from that to the next clause, Clause 4? This is the clause which removes the limit of £20 as the fee to be paid on taking out a practising certificate. May I, in referring to that, couple

1023
with it another matter which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and that is that under Schedule 3, Part I, we have the repeal of Section 75 of the principal Act, the provision whereby it might have been possible, after certain procedures had been gone through and after a poll had been held, for it to be compulsory for solicitors to be members of the Law Society. The noble and learned Lord has reminded us that that is now taken away and has been scrapped.
It might appear at first that both these proposals—to remove the limit on the practising certificate fee and the proposal to do away with this useless procedure for having a poll—are unrelated and that they are indeed innocuous. But what has caused a certain amount of—I will not say alarm (that would be to be putting it too high) but concern among some of the people with whom I have been in touch is that in his annual report to the Law Society last year by the treasurer of the Law Society, he disclosed that he was going to suggest for the consideration of the Council of the Society that there should be an adjustment of the practising certificate fee and the average subscription rate to the Society as a member, so that any practising solicitor would be entitled to membership of the Society without further payment of an annual subscription.
What does that mean? As I see it, it means that what is being suggested as a possibility is that the Law Society should fix a certain fee as being the fee payable to them for taking out a practising certificate; everybody, every solicitor, whether a member of the Law Society or not, would of course be obliged to pay that in order to get into practice; and that person would automatically, if he wished, on paying that fee, become a member of the Society. There are some solicitors who do not want to be members of the Law Society, but if this proposal were to be put into effect the result would be that if a solicitor paid the comprehensive fee to obtain a practising certificate but did not want to have the benefits of being a member of the Law Society, he would in fact by paying a subsidy to those people who did want to become members of the Law Society. Alternatively, if the payment of the all-in fee is automatically
1024
to include membership of the Law Society, then indeed you are making it compulsory to belong to the Law Society by the back door. I should be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give us some reassurance on that flatter because it has been causing some concern.
May I now go on to another of the clauses mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, and that is Clause 7, and in particular Clause 7(2). There has already been some reference to this. After we have arrived at the principle that it is desirable and indeed necessary that all solicitors should be adequately and properly insured against claims for professional negligence, a principle from which nobody will dissent, it strikes me as a little odd that instead of carrying through an enactment to set up some clear scheme for meeting that situation, all that the Bill does in Clause 7(2) is to provide a variety of choices as to the way in which this might be done. That may be all right, and it may be better to leave it flexible in that way, but those with whom I have been consulting have two reservations about the method that has been adopted.
One of the reservations is this: Where the Law Society and the Master of the Rolls proceeded under any of these alternative schemes, might it mean in some cases, particularly under subsection (2)(d), that solicitors might, under the regulations, be required to insure with one particular or a few particular selected institutions? I should have thought that there were obvious objections to that, if only on the grounds that it would be quite wrong that any particular institution should have a monopoly, or a near monopoly of this kind of business. But the second difficulty or concern we have is a little more important. What the noble and learned Lord has already said, for which I am grateful, about the new disciplinary tribunal being a more independent body—independent of the Law Society, that is to say—than the old disciplinary committee, goes some way to meet the point I want to make, but I do not think it goes all the way.
The point I want to make is that if the fund is administered directly by the Law Society—the fund, that is, under paragraph (a)—or even indirectly, when a solicitor is dealing with the fund, having

1025
had a claim or a potential claim made against him, may he not be obliged to disclose to the Law Society, in its capacity as the administrator of the fund, matters which may be the concern of the Law Society in so far as they are participants in the disciplinary tribunal? I realise that it is much better that the disciplinary tribunal should not be made up solely of members of the Council of the Law Society; but I do not read in the Bill anything which says that a substantial proportion of the membership of the disciplinary tribunal may not in fact be members of the Council of the Law Society. So they may in one capacity (in their capacity as members of the disciplinary tribunal) get to know of matters which should be confidential between the individual solicitor and his insurance concern. There is quite an important point here: that there should be absolute confidentiality between a solicitor who is confronted with a negligence claim and the people with whom he is insured.
If I may hasten on (I apologise for taking so long) my next point concerns Clause 11, which is the compensation clause, and the matter to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. In subsection (1) we are abandoning the maximum limit of the levy on each solicitor for this Compensation Fund of £10; and for the future there will be no limit. As I understand it, it will be within the authority of the Law Society, with the approval of the Master of the Rolls, to fix such figure as they think fit. It strikes me as a little odd that we should not fix a new figure—a better, higher figure. I recognise the importance of getting rid of the limit of £10 in these inflationary days, but if it was right to fix a limit in the earlier Act why is it wrong to fix any limit now? Perhaps more important than that, might not the Law Society be tempted, if they thought fit, to put a levy at a higher rate than is indeed necessary, and what protection has the individual solicitor against that being done? I apprehend that it may be said, "You need not worry about that because the amount of the levy will be determined upon an actuarial basis". If that is so, I can only ask the noble and learned Lord whether it would not be possible to say so in the Bill and to make it clear that that levy would have to be worked out, not by the Law Society, so to speak, out of
1026
the air, but upon an actuarial basis, and there might be something about the procedure by which that was to be done.
My last point concerns something which has not been mentioned so far, namely Clause 20(2). This provides that
"This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument appoint and different dates may be so appointed for different provisions of this Act."
I recognise that this procedure by which it is left to a Minister or to the Lord Chancellor to appoint the date at which different Parts of an Act of Parliament should come into effect is common practice in these days, but I think a not unimportant constitutional point is involved here. Supposing that in the course of the passage of the Bill through this House—and I earnestly hope that it will go through this House—an Amendment should be carried, possibly against the advice of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and something is done which he considers to be unwise and inappropriate, would it not then be possible for him, if he were so minded, simply not to bring that particular clause or Amendment into effect?
It may be said, of course, that the noble and learned Lord would never dream of doing any such thing, but whether he or any Lord Chancellor would dream of doing it is not really the point: the point is whether the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, should be given the power to thwart the declared wishes of Parliament. I suggest that this is a point of some constitutional importance, and indeed it may be a wider point than the point which is raised under this clause in this Bill. My Lords, I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time.
6.5 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the manner in which he has introduced the Bill this afternoon. We have had long debates before on the substance of the Bill which passed through this House and which did not receive a Second Reading in the other Chamber. Consequently, I think it was appropriate that the matters that were dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, the Master of the Rolls, were, in the main, matters

1027
which were different in effect from those which had been contained in the previous Bill.
I should like to say, first, that some points have been raised which seem to me to be very easily answered. For example, the question of bringing into effect the provision that everybody concerned should be a member of the Law Society. This is a provision which was based upon an Act which was passed, I think, in 1939 or 1940. That is over thirty years ago, and it has never been put into effect; nobody has thought of utilising that opportunity of compelling people. As an old member of the Committee which deals with consolidation, I should have thought that it might even come within the province of the Committee itself, when it comes to a question of consolidation, to decide whether that provision was not obsolete, or so unused as to justify the Committee itself deciding that a measure of that description should no longer be on the Statute Book. Indeed, the whole purpose of this Bill is to provide for the consolidating of the Acts which prevail at present, with such modifications as are apparent or should be introduced in order to bring the law up to date so far as the subject matter is concerned.
I think it is most important that people should realise that a Bill of this nature, as has already been stated, is not a Bill to protect the legal profession against any abuses. On the contrary, the Bill itself places heavy responsibilities on the members of the profession, and the members of the profession are quite prepared to accept the onus, because in fact it is only on those—and they are very few compared with the large number of solicitors in practice—who transgress against the law and the practice of the profession. The profession itself is jealous about its standing and its integrity and the regard that people should have for its ability to perform very important work for individuals, irrespective of the amounts involved, because a small amount is just as important to the individual who is concerned, as a large amount.
In my view, every individual who goes to a solicitor, whether he places a few pounds in that solicitor's hands or whether it be millions of pounds, should feel that he can rely on that solicitor. Indeed people do not realise that the profession,
1028
deals with many thousands of millions of pounds which are placed in its hands, and placed with a knowledge that the solicitor concerned will safeguard the interests of the client and will see to it that the monies are properly used in accordance with the requirements of the client. In my view it is important that we should emphasise that, because it is not known to the man in the street; it is not known to many people who ought to know better and who are constantly criticising the profession. It should be understood that here is a profession which deals with the interests of individuals and with vast sums of money in the course of its activities and which is prepared to have proper and reasonable precautions introduced into the Statute to protect the profession itself as well as the community against abuse. I therefore welcome this Bill.
Many of the points that have been raised so far were dealt with by the noble and learned Lord in his introductory remarks, including the matters raised by Clauses 7 and 11. I appreciate the points raised by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, and I suggest to him that the position has already been dealt with reasonably satisfactorily. Consider, for example, the question of compensation. The possibility of fixing a limit has been raised. How could a limit possibly be fixed for a long period? Not only do circumstances change, but so do the calls that are made on the profession for any wrongdoings or defects.
Again, I emphasise that of the 18,000 or more practising solicitors it is rare to find one going astray. We are, however, anxious to protect our clients and I would therefore find it difficult to consider fixing a limit for compensation. I urge my noble friend Lord Foot to accept that discretion must reside in someone. Parliament cannot constantly be approached for fresh provisions to be made. In any event, I believe that everything is safeguarded by the fact that the Master of the Rolls has a say in these matters, and he is not likely to deal lightly with an application for an unreasonable sum.
The question of reasonableness in refusing compensation has already been dealt with. The courts will themselves be fully entitled to go into this matter and I cannot conceive that there could be an unreasonable reason, if I may put

1029
it that way, arising from the refusal of compensation, and at this stage I do not think we need worry about this point very much. We can look into it further in Committee.
It should also be made clear that the Disciplinary Committee will now be a Tribunal. I am glad that the name is being changed, because those of us who have had experience of these issues, particularly in another place, know very well that there is misunderstanding about the manner in which the Law Society deals with complaints which come to it. It is important that one should give one's experiences when considering a Bill of this nature. For 30 years I was a Member of the other House and during that time, through all the surgeries, letters and other representations with which one deals, I do not think I received more than one complaint a year, if that, in respect of an action which had been taken by a firm of solicitors and which the client thought was unreasonable or considered that in it there had been negligence.
It is natural that in some cases, particularly when a case has been lost, the person concerned may attribute it directly to his solicitor or barrister and say that he has been negligent. I do not say that this happens in a great many cases, but it is bound to happen in some. Indeed, if two barristers in a case happen to walk away together someone is likely to come to the conclusion that they are "cutting up" the client. This is of course nonsense, but I have had such an experience and I am sure that other noble Lords know this only too well.
If we are setting up a body which will be appointed by the Master of the Rolls himself, I see no reason why anyone should complain. Certainly the Master of the Rolls has no interest in the matter, and I ask my noble friend Lord Foot to accept that there should be no cause for complaint about members of the Council of the Law Society being on this Committee. After all, the members of the Council are elected in a democratic way and the members of the Law Society have some say in these matters—and in most cases they have a considerable say.
I do not propose to deal with any of the other points that have been raised. I assume that in Committee some Amend
1030
ments will be proposed and that that will give us an opportunity to deal with ancillary items. I should like the House to give hearty support to this Bill, recognising that it is brought forward for the protection of the public against the very few solicitors who go wrong.
6.18 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, when a similar Bill came before your Lordships' House last year, I took the point that I thought that if a payment from the Compensation Fund was refused the Council should give the reasons for their decision. I am therefore grateful to them for Clause 11(12) which accepts that point. I also took two other points. First, I said that I shared the view of the late Lord Mancroft, the father of the present noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, which he expressed in 1940 when this Fund was started, that it should be an indemnity fund, the difference, as your Lordships will appreciate, being that with an indemnity fund the client has a legal right whereas with a compensation fund everything is ex gratia and he has no legal right at all. The only objection that I have heard to this view is that it might be too expensive. What would happen if there was a claim on an indemnity fund for £1 million? This question has regularly been asked, but I should have thought that that could have been met quite easily either by providing a maximum sum which would be paid out in any one case or by the Council insuring against large claims of that kind.
This is, after all, a profession which has a great reputation and I believe that it would be in their interest if they could say, as every New Zealand solicitor can say, "You need never worry about handing over any of your money to a solicitor, because in the highly unlikely event of his making off with it you would have a legal right to be indemnified". If New Zealand solicitors can do that, I do not quite follow why the solicitors of England and Wales cannot do it, and I think I am right in saying that the solicitors of New South Wales are in exactly the same position.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord forgive me for interrupting? How does he envisage the position if a limit is put on the amount that is to be paid? How is that limit

1031
to be put on? Does that not mean that in fact a person has not been indemnified? He has only been indemnified to an extent which is possible through certain financial funds which may be available.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I do not think, with respect, that any ordinary person—I am thinking of the ordinary family person—is going to be very much worried if he is told: "Don't worry about handing your money to a solicitor because if he embezzles it you will be indemnified up to £100,000". It might affect some very rich person, perhaps, but not any ordinary person.
Secondly, I have never been very happy about the degree of discretion. It has been suggested that because the Law Society have a discretion, that means in practice that they can pay although the claim does not strictly fall within the provision. But it is in fact the opposite. There is no right to pay out of the fund. The Council have no right to pay at all unless—and I leave out the words which are immaterial:
"… the council… are satisfied that a person has suffered… loss in consequence of dishonesty on the part of a solicitor.…"
So they cannot pay unless they are satisfied about that. It is only at that point that a discretion arises and the discretion is simply a discretion not to pay. They can only pay if they
"are satisfied that a person has suffered or is likely to suffer loss in consequence of dishonesty on the part of a solicitor … the Society may, if the Council think fit, make to that person a grant."
It is simply a discretion not to pay.
I have no intention of putting down any Amendment at the Committee stage of the Bill, or of pressing either of these points any further, because I do not think that that would be fair to the Law Society. I feel that any Member introducing a Private Member's Bill (and particularly perhaps one affecting the Law Society) is in a difficult position in this House. After all, if there is a Private Member's Bill in this House and if the principle of the Bill is accepted at Second Reading, this House then takes a great deal of trouble at the Committee stage to get the Bill right. They have a further opportunity at the Report stage and they give it a Third Reading only
1032
if this House thinks that it is a Bill which ought to pass into law. It then goes to the other place where if one honourable) Member says, "Object!", it means that it goes over to another week. That can go on week after week and it has no preference whatever over a Bill sought to be introduced by a Member of the other place at the same time.
May I remind your Lordships of a vivid example? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will remember that there was a time when his court decided that it was not right that a husband who deserted his wife should turn his wife and children out of the matrimonial home to go and live there with his mistress, taking the deserted wife's equity in the matrimonial home. That view seemed to me obviously right, though I was unsure myself of what its legal basis was. But if the Court of Appeal said so, who was I to say anything to the contrary? After two or three years a case of that kind came before your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity and they said that although it was desirable that the court should have such a power, in fact it had not. They said they could not legislate, but they hoped that Parliament, with all convenient speed, would give the court such a power. My noble friend Lady Summerskill then introduced the Matrimonial Homes Bill which, not having been drafted by a Parliamentary draftsman, was frankly not acceptable. The Law Commission however, as your Lordships may know, have a "red flag" department, as they call it, for dealing quickly with something urgent. So I waved my red flag and said, "You must redraft this and get it through." That we did and a great deal of trouble was taken in this House to get it right. But when on December 9, 1966, it got to the other place, one honourable Member said, "Object!";so it went over to December 16 when the same honourable Member said "Object!". It went over to January 27, 1967, when the same honourable Member said "Object!". He said it again on February 3; he said it again on February 10; he said it again on February 17; he said it again on February 24; he said it again on March 3; he said it again on March 10; and he said it again on March 17. I said to my noble friend "I am afraid we have 'had' it". But, I had reckoned without the forces of nature, because when for the eleventh

1033
time the Second Reading was moved on April 7, there was dead silence. The honourable gentleman had caught 'flu.
The question which I venture to ask your Lordships to consider is: is this the sensible way for Parliament to proceed? Is it right, when this House has taken a great deal of trouble to get a Bill right, that it should have no preference over a Bill, as it were just starting, in the other place. It gets there when Private Members' time has finished. But in point of fact, the other place, towards the end of a Session, is much less busy as all the pressure is then on us. Would it not be right that Private Bills from your Lordships' House should have some arrangement under which, albeit a limited number, could be taken in the other place towards the end of a Session? Of course I do not intend to be critical of the other place. Their procedure is entirely a matter for them. I am wondering whether our Procedure Committee should not consider this question and, if they think it right, approach the authorities of the other House.
The Law Society is perhaps particularly vulnerable, because that has always been a Private Member's Bill and they are always open to pressure in the sense that they know that any one Member of the other place can stop their Bills going through. The alternative suggestion which I respectfully make to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is that if that suggestion proves impracticable, has the time perhaps come when Law Society Bills should be Government Bills? The Law Society cannot put through a Bill—to be practicable—if the Lord Chancellor says, "I cannot possibly agree to Clause 10, and the Government could not allow it to become law." Obviously then the Law Society has to drop it, and in practice Law Society Bills, once the Lord Chancellor has approved of them, are always informally supported by the Government. Having been in office, I appreciate that any suggestion that Government time should be spent on something on which it has not been spent before will not be too favourably received; but if this Bill were to be hung up again in the other place this year and it was impossible to arrange for alternative proceedings in the other place, I should hope that the suggestion which I have made might at least receive
1034
the consideration of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. My Lords, having said that, I wish the Bill well and I hope that it will pass.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him to make a further suggestion to the Government? With long experience in the other place, I know that if the Government are determined that a Bill shall go through, they have ways and means by which they may be able to persuade anybody who says "Object!" not to object. That has been done on previous occasions. They certainly have the main power in these matters because in most cases of objection I am sure it is not a question of Party politics; it is the Government who see to it that somebody objects.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, if my noble friend wants me to comment on that, may I say that I can well understand that the Government are able in the other place to bring pressure to bear on their own Members; but, with great respect, I do not see what pressure they can bring to bear on a Member of the Opposition.
6.29 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I ought to say something about this important Bill, although the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, while tearing himself away from the exciting serial, viewing films on television and reversing his own judgments, has done the House a very great service by bringing forward this Bill so lucidly this afternoon. I know the House would like me to express our genuine gratitude to him. As he says, the majority of the provisions of this Bill were fully debated in this House last year. I did at that time take the opportunity of paying my own tribute to the solicitors' profession, and I will not repeat it again. But I feel that I ought to add the weight of my own authority, such as it is, as a Member of the Government, behind the support which has been given to this Bill from the Labour Front Bench, as an important measure of law reform: and I would like to echo the plea which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, made when he expressed the hope that it would on this occasion find its way on to the Statute Book.

1035
That leads me, of course, to comment, I hope tactfully, upon the rather delicate matter which has been touched on by several noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill; because its predecessor was in fact blocked by several Members of Parliament, who possess the undoubted right to block Private Members' legislation which has not received an official place in the Government programme or won priority in the House of Commons ballot for Private Members' Bills. So It is with modifications that the Bill comes before your Lordships again this afternoon.
I must say this to the noble Lord, Lord Janner. I accept his view that there is absolutely nothing Party political about this Bill, but it does so happen that every Member who blocked it was a member of his own Party. Therefore, the supposed power of the Government to withdraw the objections, whatever may be true in the abstract, is not true in relation to this Bill. I would earnestly suggest that those Members of his profession who have the pleasure and honour of being members of that Party would quietly suggest to anybody who may be disposed to block it in the other place that they are not really serving either God or Mammon by doing so.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord permit me to say that, needless to say, that kind of approach has been made and is being made; but of course all depends on whether you have got a very obstreperous person.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I said, I wanted to approach this ground rather delicately, and so I will not pursue it, except to say this, and to make it absolutely clear that I have said it: that I do not in fact criticise those Members who blocked it last year; I think it would to begin with be a breach of privilege to do so, and if not a breach of privilege a breach of courtesy. But also they can say, and so can the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that it may be that one result of their efforts, whether ill or well directed, was to make certain, and I think not unimportant, improvements in the Bill which is now
1036
before your Lordships. Therefore, it may be that when they have fully discussed the matter between themselves—I understand they are also discussing it with the Law Society, and I do not want to say anything which may compromise those discussions—they may feel that they have achieved their object and they could now allow the Bill to go through; because I would think that the provisions of the new Clause 7, which have been fully explained by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, do constitute an extremely important advance in the protection of the client, quite apart from the other provisions of the Bill.
May I again, in passing, just say this. I have to depend very largely—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is quite right to mention the subject—for measures of law reform upon Private Members, and I have more than once expressed my gratitude to them for enabling me, through them, to put on the Statute Book valuable measures of law reform which would otherwise not have found their way into the Government programme. Obviously, it is easy for them to be blocked. I do not think it is possible for the Procedure Committee of this House, without a breach of privilege, to raise the matter with the Commons, and it is not always possible for the Lord Chancellor of the day, with the best will in the world, to persuade his colleagues to find Government time for them. I think the best thing that we can do is to bring pressure each upon our own friends —and most of us have friends in another place—not needlessly to hold up valuable pieces of law reform which have been properly processed, either through the Law Commission where that route has been chosen, or through other channels, as has this. Last year, for instance, I not only lost the predecessor of this Bill; I lost a very valuable little Bill for the alteration of the unity rule in married women's domicile, which was blocked by two Members whom I was quite unable to identify, and therefore with whom I was quite unable to reason, and for reasons I was wholly unable to understand. We have it coming forward again, I hope, from the other place this Session, and I trust it will be more successful.
I am not going again through all the several provisions of this Bill. May I

1037
just underline the way in which this Bill is required in the public interest and in the interest of the client, and not simply in the interests of the solicitors' profession. The first point is that it greatly strengthens the right of the public against a small minority of defaulting solicitors and dishonest solicitors, not merely by means of the compensation fund, but by enabling the Law Society to take over their papers, freeze their bank accounts and sort out other tangles which would gravely prejudice clients. Clause 16, in connection with that matter, which has not I think so far been mentioned, is absolutely vital to the Director of Public Prosecutions, because, for reasons which I explained more fully last year, it enables information about solicitors' accounts to be passed to the Director in order to expedite, and even render possible, criminal prosecutions for fraud.
The second point I wish to emphasise is the value of Clause 7. I sometimes have—and I have, of course, in the nature of things since I have been Lord Chancellor—a number of complaints from disappointed persons against members of the solicitors' profession. They are rather apt to interpret these as examples of dishonesty, when they manifestly are not. What nearly always is the case is that they arc saying that it is a case of negligence, and they are always a little annoyed, but quite unreasonably, when I have to tell them that this is a question for the courts; that it is not a question for a disciplinary tribunal, not a question for any sort of new kind of Ombudsman, because what the disappointed client wants, if he is right, is damages, and only the courts can award him damages. It is not the same as compensation out of the compensation fund, which is awarded for dishonesty. Now that Clause 7 makes provision for compulsory insurance for negligence, the client who has got a genuine claim against a firm of solicitors for want of care will, when the arrangements take effect, have a reasonable chance, at any rate up to the insurable limit, of complete indemnification. That, I think, is a very great advance.
I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was right in welcoming the provision, which he may have been instrumental in getting in, about giving reasons for refusing a grant from the
1038
compensation fund. I am not sure that I absolutely went all the way along with him when he said that, in effect, the discretion given to the Law Society in relation to the compensation fund itself was only a discretion to refuse. It may look like that on paper, and I recognise the force of the purely legal point that the noble and learned Lord was making, but my very strong impression in dealing with the Law Society is that they do in fact allow compensation from the Compensation Fund in a great number of cases where the border between negligence and dishonesty is not very easily drawn and could be drawn very much more rigidly against the client than the Law Society commonly does. I may be wrong about that impression. It is a subjective one, but it is a subjective one that I have received from the receipt of a great number of letters from Members of Parliament, from members of the public, and a good deal of correspondence between my Department and the Law Society.
I think there is only one other point in the Bill that concerns me, and that is the point made towards the end of his speech by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. about the commencement provisions. With the greatest respect to him, I think that the point is a fanciful one. What he was in fact saying was this. Suppose Parliament inserted in this Bill a provision which I had advised Parliament not to insert, I might use the power that I have of bringing the Bill into operation in such a way as, in effect, to veto that provision. With great respect, I think that is rather a fanciful point. It is not only that I do not think that I would do that—and I cannot conceive of any other likely Lord Chancellor who would do it either—it is also that we are responsible to Parliament, and Parliament would get after us very quickly if we did.
The conclusive point is that it is quite obvious that this Bill has to have commencement provisions of some kind. Somebody has to press the button. The button has to be pressed by somebody who is responsible to Parliament and not the Law Society, and that somebody has to be a Minister. Theoretically it is true, I suppose, that in any one of the Bills—and in probably almost every Bill, Government or otherwise, that is passed through Parliament nowadays some of the provisions are brought into

1039
effect either by a Minister or by Order in Council (which is virtually, for this purpose, the same thing)—the same kind of objection can be made. There is no particular factor in a Solicitors Bill which makes it different from any of the others. Indeed, I should have thought that as the provisions of the Bill as it stands have all been carefully ironed out between the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor's Department—although I must say that I did not play a very active personal part in the negotiations—it is probably less likely in relation to a Solicitors Bill than in almost any other that I can think of. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Foot, wants to resume the discussion on Committee stage, and can think of a better way of doing it which will not compromise the whole system of commencement provisions in other cases. I certainly do not want to close my mind to putting fetters upon my power, which in any event I shall only exercise upon advice and which I shall endeavour to do in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. I am afraid that I have spoken at a little length. I had better leave the floor to my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls to reply to those points which more immediately affect the Law Society.
6.45 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have given such a welcome to this Bill, and, if I may add it, I thank them for the most valuable suggestions which have been made. May I just reply to my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill that in dealing with the provisions for insuring against negligence the matter of professional liability is defined, or expressed, in very wide terms. It is designedly wide, and it is primarily intended to cover negligence. There may be some aspects of dishonesty that come into it. I agree that it is not intended at all that the solicitor should insure in respect of the rent of his offices, or be insured under this scheme for the salary of his clerks. But I trust that that matter can be dealt with in this way: that it is only giving power to make arrangements, and no doubt arrangements with the insurers will be such that professional liability is not too widely extended.
As to the compensation fund and the giving of reasons, as I understand the
1040
position, if a body formed under Statute has a decision to make in respect of which reasons are to be given, then according to the latest cases—and particularly one in your Lordships' House as to a Minister, a case known as Padfield—the courts can, either by mandamus or by declaration, inquire into the validity of the decision; and, if the reasons are ill-founded, or if the proper considerations have not been taken into account, the courts can deal with that decision.
The other point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill was as to this odd provision whereby in 1939 or 1941 a ballot could be taken to make membership of the Law Society compulsory. As I understand it, it was considered at that time that it might be desirable for the whole profession to come in, not only to what I may call the strictly professional side of the Law Society's operations but also into its almost trade union activities, its social activities. It was considered that it should be like membership of a club. However, that has all gone by the board now and I hope it will be realised that there is no need for that clause. I may say to the noble Lord Lord Foot, on that point that there is no arrière pensée concerning the raising of the practising certificate fee and providing an indirect way for making everybody become members of the Law Society. The Treasurer of the Law Society I believe, mentioned the difficulty of dividing the two funds up: the professional side, which the Law Society proper administer, and the other membership side, which is separate. I hope that my noble friend will take it from me, as Master of the Rolls, that in checking the accounts we see that practising certificate fees are properly confined to legitimate purposes, and that there is no arrière pensée about having an indirect method of compulsory membership.
May I deal with one or two other points which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, made about the provisions as to insurance. It was feared that if the Law Society dealt with that insurance, there might be some question of disclosure of matters which might be matters of privilege, because in arrahgnging insurance the solicitor might have to disclose to the insurers any possible claim against him, and things of that kind. I think I can assure the noble Lord that if any insurance arrangements

1041
are made, they will be completely independent of any other side of the Law Society operations. Whether the Law Society do it themselves or whether they insure in a block insurance or the like, it will be completely independent, and there will be no question of any breach of professional privilege or of information being disclosed. May I just add one further word as to the amount of the contribution to the compensation fund. It would be undesirable to put any limit on that, such as £15 instead of £10, because, with the changing values of money, figures so quickly get out of date.
With regard to what my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner said about the desirability of an indemnity fund, that has been considered and is being considered, but is not perhaps quite applicable at the moment. This Compensation Fund enables the Law Society to deal with urgent cases. It also deals with doubtful cases; and, although my noble and learned friend said, "They have got to be satisfied that there is dishonesty, and so forth" Clause 11 states that if the Council are satisfied that a person is likely to suffer hardship because of a failure to account, then they can make a grant from the Compensation Fund. On the whole, the practice works and, together with the valuable addition of my noble and learned friend's reasons, I hope your Lordships will think that it will satisfy for the time being, although in due course an indemnity fund may be established.
I hope and believe that that covers most of the points. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for explaining the position about the various dates and about bringing into operation the various provisions. I must say that I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for showing the disadvantages of the power in another place to say, "Object!". I hope that, as a result of those representations, this Bill may not only receive a welcome in your Lordships' House, but may pass in this Session, because owing to the real need for its provisions, it should be passed into operation as soon as may be.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
6.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHACELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It presents me with a certain problem. Most measures of law reform inaugurate some new provision of the law which its sponsors regard as desirable. This Bill is a bonfire of 118 whole Acts and parts of 140 more which are no longer considered of practical utility. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in a speech which he made two or three days ago, spoke about the awful state of our Statute Book, and I am not sure that he was not right. It is really a sort of Augean stables and, short of diverting the Styx into it, as I seem to remember from my school days Hercules did, the only method we have of reducing its awful state is to ask the Law Commission to propose periodical bonfires of unwanted furniture. This is the fourth such Bill which the Law Commission have produced and it forms part of their systematic cleansing of the Augean stables. I am sure the House will be grateful to the Law Commission for their continuing work in this field.
Your Lordships will see from the Schedule to the Bill that there are 13 categories of enactments proposed for repeal. I had better enumerate them. They are respectively: the demise of the Crown, Bishoprics, other ecclesiastical enactments, banking, criminal law, highway and traffic law, overseas territories, agriculture, land acquisition, the coal industry, public schools, legal aid and miscellaneous. I now come to the difficult part, because at one time I desired—indeed, I have written them down here—to try to select out of these 118 useless old Acts and 140 useless parts of Acts some which might interest your Lordships, to explain what the Bill is all about, but the choice would be a little arbitrary.
The explanation of it all is to be found in Command Paper 5108, the 4th Report on Statute Law Revision by the two Law Commissions—and I should like, in passing, to thank the Scottish Law Commission for their work no less than the English one—and in a very much larger green document, which I have, called

1043
Notes on the Bill. Although I am therefore not selecting—I have been through them with some trouble—any particular enactments for special mention, I have, if I can delve into these two documents, the capacity to reply to cross-examination should the research of noble Lords inspire them to find out exactly why any particular document has been put on the bonfire. With those words of introduction and commendation, I commend the Bill for Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
6.56 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I rise only very shortly, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for putting this Bill before us, and also to thank the Law Commission. I confess that I had thought, when I saw their previous three Acts clearing a great deal of junk off the Statute Book, that they would be hard put to it soon to find any more, but that evidently is not so. Of course, if he were here it is possible that my noble friend Lord Maelor might have objected to the repeal of the,
"Acte for the translation of the Bible and the Dyvine Service into the Welshe Tongue".
And I do not know how the Act of Anne
"… for completing a chapel of ease in the lower town of Deal in the county of Kent by a duty on waterborn coals to be brought into the said town"
has lasted so long. I should have thought that the chapel of ease must have been built by now.
I do not have sufficient knowledge, whether historical or geographical, but there is the Act of 1774,
"… to establish a fund towards further defraying the charges of the administration of justice and support of the civil government within the province of Quebec in America."
We know already that, unlike the present day, they had meat in the reign of Henry
1044
VIII, because there is an Act of Henry VIII
"… licensyng the bochers of London to kyll theyr cattell within the walls of the same cytie."
It is greatly to our advantage that the Law Commission are to continue this very good work. As I said, it surprises me that we should still have on the Statute Book so many Acts which are obviously junk and which we ought to get rid of.
6.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising those points. So far as the three Statutes which he has mentioned are concerned, I think I can give him a brief answer. The Welsh Bible provision is no longer necessary, for two reasons: the first is that the Bible has been translated into Welsh; and the second is that the Welsh Church has been disestablished so that it would not be our business even if the translation had pot been made. The Quebec church fund became spent on the repeal in 1888 of the relevant provisions in the British North America (Seignorial Rights) Act 1825. The residue of the Act is no longer required and the Anglican Church of Canada has agreed to the proposed repeal.
As regards the Henry VIII slaughterhouses in London, this is a more interesting story. In the fifteenth century the butchers were creating a public nuisance in London—by which was then meant the City—by slaughtering cattle without there being suitable provision for the removal of the remains and the blood. During the course of the reign of Henry VIII, they were persuaded to provide suitable sewerage arrangements; so the Statute of Henry VIII was then passed to enable them to slaughter cattle in London. This is now dealt with by more modern legislation, so the old legislation can be regarded as obsolete or spent. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord; and those are the answers to the questions which he has raised.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS (COMPUTATION) REGULATIONS 1973
7.0 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE rose to move, That the Draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1973, laid before the House on January 23, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of these Regulations is to increase the prescribed amounts for family income supplements from April 3 this year, on which date it will be twelve months since they were last increased. For a one-child family, the prescribed amount will he increased from £20 a week to £21; for a two-child family, from £22 to £2350; for a three-child family, from £24 to £26; and for a family of over three children it will be increased by E2·50 for each child. In general, this will mean that over the whole life of the scheme these prescribed amounts will more than keep pace with the increase in prices over the same period.
Perhaps I should also remind your Lordships that these awards are now made for twelve months rather than for six months, which means that the supplement continues to be paid as people's earnings rise in general; and the result is that it is estimated that in the year 1973–74 the family income supplements will cost about £1 million more than they did this year—in all, about £11 million. The supplement is raid to families who need help, and the latest figures that I can give your Lordships show that some 84,000 families are in receipt of this supplement, and the average weekly payment to them is just over £2 a week. A further 20,000 families receive increased supplement benefit because of the effect of the "wage stop" provisions; so, in all, over 100,000 families, including something like a quarter of a million children, are receiving help from family income supplements. Among them are some 30,000

Country

State schools

Private schools

Children's homes

Belgium

…

Not permitted.

Not permitted.

Not permitted.

Denmark

…

Not permitted.

Discouraged.

Not permitted.

France

…

Not permitted.

Discouraged.

Prohibited in State institutions. Otherwise discouraged.

Germany

…

Permitted in elementary schools only.

Permitted in elementary schools only.

Permitted on same basis as in schools.

Irish Republic

…

Permitted.

Permitted.

Permitted.

taly

…

Not permitted.

Not permitted.

Not permitted.

Luxembourg

…

Not permitted.

Not permitted.

Not permitted.

Netherlands

…

Not prohibited.

Not prohibited.

Not prohibited.

single-parent families, who obviously are a very special case which all your Lordships would wish to help, and a somewhat similar number of single-child families, who of course do not get any benefit from family allowances. Also, all those in receipt of the family income supplements get a passport to other health benefits.
My Lords, we are continuing to publicise the scheme. As far as one can best estimate at the moment, about half of those who are eligible are receiving the benefit; but some three-quarters of those who are entitled to £2 a week or more are claiming it. We shall continue to try to improve on this figure, and we already have arrangements for making sure that people who are claiming maternity benefit or family allowances, or those who are returning to work after having been in receipt of supplementary benefit, are informed about the family income supplements. I am sure that these Regulations, increasing the prescribed amounts, will appeal to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1973, laid before the House on January 23, be approved.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.