Lords Sitting of 3 May 1973

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES OR the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

FUTURE OF NAMIBIA
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 was their reaction to the report by Dr. Waldheim to the United Nations Security Council on the future of Namibia (South West Africa).
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we have just received Dr. Waldheim's report and so have not had time to study it in detail. I cannot anticipate the discussion shortly to take place in the Security Council.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply may I ask him whether it is the case that Dr. Waldheim has been having discussions with the Foreign Secretary of the Republic of South Africa in Geneva, and that he had indicated that he would be giving his report before the end of April? In view of the fact that the Government have not had time to consider it, may I ask the noble Earl whether Her Majesty's Government stand by the United Nations Security Council resolution that the only satisfactory solution in Namibia, South West Africa, would be a united, independent State rather than segregated Bantustan groups'?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Dr. Waldheim was asked to report to the Security Council by April 30. In fact, his report was made in New York, I think, on Tuesday of this week and was received to-day in London. It will of course be for the Security Council to decide whether he should continue his mission, which we regard as the most hopeful development in the search for a negotiated solution. I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord
180
Brockway, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir discussed this matter with the South African Foreign Minister on April 9. The South African Government are in no doubt that we should like to see a peaceful evolution to self-determination and independence.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, does there not come a time when controversy is resolved by history? Is it not over 55 years since this territory began to be managed and governed by South Africa, by the will of the people who won the war as a whole? Has it not been well managed, and a lot of money put into it? Is there any other group or nation which is geographically, ethnically or otherwise so capable of managing it as South Africa, and would we not do well to leave it alone?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have always wished to see that there should be a peaceful evolution to self-determination and to independence. This is the aim which we believe should be achieved, and it is our intention to try to see that it comes about.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that controversy which goes on for 55 years and is not settled in a decent way is likely to end in bloodshed and war?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is precisely what we are trying to avoid.
LORD FRASER or LONSDALE: My Lords, is that not a great exaggeration? This territory can hardly be called unanimous. It is terribly divided. It is almost impossible to imagine it governing itself or being able to express a will to do so.
LORD HALE: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that only two minutes ago the noble Lord who has just asked a question was describing the Treaty of Versailles as an expression of the will of the people, and that it is therefore a little hard now to talk about the will of the people being expressed? There is hardly one of us here who has not heard these statements about South West Africa and its history over all these years. Will the noble Earl accept the

181
fact that his extremely forthright reply to my noble friend Lord Brockway was very welcome indeed to almost everybody who is concerned with this matter?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for those remarks. One realises that on this particular question people hold very strong views, and all Her Majesty's Government are concerned to do is to see that, whatever progress is made, it is progress in the right direction carefully made.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating what the Minister has said, may I ask whether the real issue is not this: whether Namibia, South West Africa, shall become one united, independent State or, as South Africa desires, a group of racially-segregated Bantustan States? Is that not the real issue and, if it is, will Her Majesty's Government declare in favour of the Security Council resolution on this subject?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is because the United Nations were so concerned over this problem that Dr. Waldheim was asked to make his investigations, which he has done. I think that it would be somewhat premature, considering that Dr. Waldheim has only just made his report, to get ourselves involved. I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, might he able to wait until there has been sufficient time to study Dr. Waldheim's report. The Government think this is really the best way to go about the matter.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I shall put down another Question later.

ABACO
3.14 p.m.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: 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 action they propose to take in response to the representations which have been made and are at present being made on behalf of the people of Abaco to allow Abaco to become a
182
Crown Colony when the Bahamas achieve independence.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, representations were made to Her Majesty's Government in December last that the Abaco Islands should be allowed to secede from the Bahamas at independence and remain a Crown colony. This request was refused, and the question has not been raised with Her Majesty's Government since then.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply and appreciating the difficulties which Her Majesty's Government face over this, may I ask whether my noble friend would not agree that the Bahamas have been united with Great Britain for longer than England and Scotland have been united, and that the inhabitants of an area such as Abaco, who have been connected with Britain for so many years, are entitled to more consultation than they have been given in view of the very large changes which are going to be brought about in their future? If Her Majesty's Government are not satisfied about what are the views of these people, are they not as entitled to be consulted as much as the people of Ulster, of Malta, of the Falkland Islands or of Gibraltar?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Abaco is an integral part of the Bahamas. Her Majesty's Government were prepared to consider the clearly expressed desire of the Bahamas Parliament for independence; they could not acquiesce in any fragmentation of the Bahamas.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would my noble friend say whether he regards self-determination as an overriding principle; and, if he does, would he be able to say that he is willing to attend to this principle whichever way it goes?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there was an election in September, 1972. The Opposition Free National Movement did not oppose independence in principle but argued that it should come at a slower pace. When the independence resolution was passed in the Bahamas Parliament there was not one dissident vote.
LORD CLIFFORD or CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is it not a fact that in the Bahamas the population has been known

183
to stone the tourists and that the Government have insisted on inefficient bank clerks and the like in offshore business, so losing their two main sources of income? Would it not be a good lesson in the facts of economic life if Abaco retained its present status and so become to the Bahamas what the Cayman Islands are and were to Jamaica?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Abaco has a population of 6,000 out of a total Bahamas population of 170,000. I think it would be impracticable to separate this particular island from the remainder of the Bahamas.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that we do not want what happened with Anguilla and St. Kitts to happen here? Is there not a danger that this might happen if the people of Abaco do not have their self-determination? Is it not logical, since we always respect the wishes of people who want independence, that we should respect the wishes of those who want their country to remain a Crown colony?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can only assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government were concerned to consider the wishes of the people of the Bahamas. That is why they took note of the Bahamas Parliament's resolution. I can only repeat that not one member of the Opposition or of the Government Parties voted against that resolution.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming the independence of the Bahamas, is there not much to be said for what has been expressed behind the noble Earl, and is it not now desirable (with all the groups in the Caribbean which include St. Nevis and Anguilla) that there should be a conference between the Caribbean countries to decide these difficult issues which arise as independence is gained?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there has been a conference in this country with representatives of the Bahamas to try to thresh out what is the right way to go towards their independence. This has been done; and with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I should not think that a new conference at this
184
juncture within the Caribbean would be of great assistance.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that a Constitution was arranged for the Bahamas some four and a half years ago with the clear intention that the Bahamas would go into independence and that at no stage was there any dissent within the Bahamas about going into independence? The fact is that there has been an appeal; it has been disallowed and has not been pursued. Would the noble Earl not agree that in the interests of the Caribbean it would be best to leave this now and to hope that the Bahamas as a united country will prosper and succeed in its democratic processes?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Over the past several years there has been a distinct, direct and positive movement towards independence and this is its culmination.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that in the vote to which my noble friend referred, the Members of the Opposition walked out, as is I believe the custom in the Bahamas, and therefore the fact that there was a unanimous resolution means precisely nothing?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if a unanimous resolution means precisely nothing, I suppose that there is no point in voting.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Cross-Benches.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government agree that, whatever sympathy one may have for the views of particular groups caught up in the process of constitutional change, it is really not possible, two months before the agreed transfer of power, for a colony to contemplate fragmentation, especially in the absence of support from either the elected Ministers or the elected Opposition?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I think that he is absolutely right.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that we have a long-standing tradition of protection of minorities and that the smaller the minority the greater our obligation; and that we should not allow the smallness of this minority to deter us from fulfilling that traditional and historic obligation, particularly when our performance in this matter will be watched elsewhere in the world? Would the noble Earl not agree that the argument about fragmentation comes ill from a Government of either side in this country which has seen the fragmentation of one Colony after another?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that we should take small minorities into account, and this is what we have done. It is our belief that to fragment this particular island from the rest of the Bahamas would be to do a great disservice to the whole of the Bahamas and to this particular island.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, would it not be better to have fragmentation now than three years later, as it has happened in Anguilla?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we have no evidence at all to show that the idea which my noble friend has postulated would come about.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it not deplorable that this should be put as a possibility at this stage?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think it is a great pity that that has been suggested and I believe that it is without foundation.

UGANDA: PRESS REPORT OF FRENCH AID
3.28 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any truth in the Press report that the French Government, apparently at the instance of Colonel Ghadaffi of Libya, are about to give military assistance to General Amin of Uganda.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we have been in touch with the French Government about Press reports suggesting that the French are supplying armoured personnel carriers and missiles to Uganda. The French have told us that these reports are without foundation.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I welcome the reassuring reply of the noble Earl. May I ask him whether he does not think that unfounded reports of this description do considerable and unnecessary harm to Anglo-French relations? May I further ask him whether it is now accepted that any proposals to arm third parties which might have unfortunate political repercussions will be previously discussed in meetings of the machinery for co-ordinating foreign policies which the Ministers of the European Economic Community are now, as I understand it, in process of constructing?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that unfounded reports of this nature do a very great deal of harm. It is possible that in due course, when there may be the development of a Common Market foreign policy, the kind of idea which the noble Lord has put forward will come about. I would assure him that we are in the closest touch with the French Government, and they know our views in this matter.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in view of the impossibility of placing reliance upon statements made by the French Government and the Libyan Government as was illustrated in the case of the Mirages supplied to Libya on condition that they would not be sent on to Egypt, and they were sent on to Egypt and also of the fact that Libya has supplied arms used to destroy our own soldiers, does not the noble Earl think that careful investigation should be made into the report which has been spread on this issue? Should we not see to it that in future there shall be no dealings of that kind between Libya and France?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is of course entirely for France and Libya to decide whether they wish to trade. I entirely agree with the noble Lord in the concern which he has expressed. But I can assure him that we have been in the closest touch with the French, and

187
when he says that we cannot rely on them I do not believe that is a fair comment. We have been in the closest touch with them, and they are fully aware of our views.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl will follow up what has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and also see to it that in the European discussions that take place the matters to which I have referred, as well as the one the noble Lord raised, shall be given careful consideration?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am sure that this is the kind of thing which will be given due consideration when these discussions get under way.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is it not a fact that it is now almost accepted that Libya is financing an international criminal conspiracy and contributing—according to the Sunday Times—£12 million a year for the fomentation of crime in the Middle East? And in view of the obvious mental illness of Colonel Ghadaffi and General Amin, who appear to display precisely the same symptoms, is it not a very grave matter indeed that there should be any rapprochement between them at all? May it not be a matter for urgent consultation in every possible direction?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it may well be a matter of concern, and that is the reason why, when the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, put down his Question, Her Majesty's Government went to considerable trouble to find out whether the reports which have given such concern were true. It is our information that these reports are unfounded.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I accept that.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLLSHAN): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who is sitting judicially, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is one of a regular series of measures which aim to tidy up
188
the Statute Book by repealing obsolete, unnecessary or superseded enactments. It extends only to Northern Ireland, and your Lordships may be wondering why it is in the form of a Bill rather than an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, as has been the practice over the last year regarding measures concerning matters which were within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Although this could have been done, there would have been a great deal of detail involved, and it was thought that the Order in Council procedure was not altogether the most suitable for legislative activity of this kind. A more satisfactory alternative was to make use of the existing machinery which applied to normal Westminster Statute Law Revision Bills. If your Lordships agree to give this Bill a Second Reading the result will be, therefore, that the Bill will be considered in detail by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. This Committee has the legal expertise to give the measure the kind of close and detailed examination which it merits, but which it could not receive under the Order in Council procedure. Officials can be questioned by Members of the Joint Committee and a Report is then laid before your Lordships in the usual way.
I will not take up the time of your Lordships' House by mentioning all the enactments which are repealed by the Bill, particularly since the list begins with a Statute of Henry III in the year 1246. Part I of the Schedule lists enactments of the Parliaments of England and of the United Kingdom before 1920 which are being repealed in their application to Northern Ireland. Four whole Acts and parts of 18 other Acts of the Parliaments of England and the United Kingdom are included in Part I. Part II of the Schedule proposes the repeal of 77 whole Acts and parts of 143 other Acts of the Parliaments of Ireland and Northern Ireland. There is also a mistake in an Act of 1971 (the Civil Evidence Act (Northern Ireland)) which will be corrected by Clause 2 of the present Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a;.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Government are of course absolutely

189
right to proceed by Act of Parliament. It would be intolerable if we were by Order to cancel any Bill. It is almost impossible—and I am sure the noble Lord would not welcome it—to start querying this enormous list. Therefore it is satisfactory that it will be closely examined by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I would make only one point. No doubt the Committee will examine, in regard to the revision and the repeal of other ancient Statutes which have already taken place in the United Kingdom, that in so far as those revisions did not extend to Northern Ireland and are therefore reflected in this Act, that the Committee will precisely follow the usual practice. I should be extremely sorry if the Bill which dealt with Royal fish, which caused some commotion in your Lordships' House, should be overlooked, and that whales, if stranded in Northern Ireland, will still remain the property of the Crown.
On Question, Bill read 2a;, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY BILL
3.32 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this Bill has a strictly limited objective and an urgent one. Its purpose is to enable elections to be held for a new Assembly in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. Since our debate on the White Paper my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has announced in another place, as some noble Lords may be aware, that the date for these elections will be June 28. The establishment of this Assembly is the first step in the process of building new and representative political institutions in Ulster on the basis of the policies contained in the White Paper on the Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals which your Lordships approved on March 28.
In that debate there was wide agreement about the urgency of holding elections to the new Assembly without delay. What the Government are now doing, in response to this general sentiment, which I may say coincides with our own judgment, is to hive off from the constitutional
190
Bill those parts of it which concern the election. This Bill does no more than authorise the setting up of an Assembly and the method of election to it. It goes no further than that. More detailed provisions will be contained in the main constitutional Bill, which should have made substantial progress through Parliament by the time the new Assembly is elected.
The Bill now before your Lordships provides, first, that the Assembly shall consist of 78 Members, and that they shall be returned for the Westminster constituencies in Northern Ireland. There are 12 of these, and the boundaries which were revised as a result of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in 1970 will be used, as in the Border poll. The election will be held on the basis of the single transferable vote, which is provided for in Clause 2(3). This means, of course, that there will be several Members for each constituency, and the allocation of the 78 seats between the 12 constituencies is set out in the Schedule to the Bill. The Government do not pretend that there is any great magic about the figure of 78, or in the precise distribution of seats which is proposed. Other solutions could have been adopted. But taking everything into consideration, 78 seats, which is the equivalent of the former Stormont House of Commons and the Senate added together, seemed to us to be the most reasonable basis.
A number of factors had to be judged. First, it is desirable to have as narrow variation as possible in the average number of electors per seat in the various constituencies. The arrangements contained in this Bill offer a spread of between about 11,900 (for West Belfast) and about 14,400 (for South Antrim). This compares favourably with the position in the single seat Westminster constituencies, even on the revised boundaries (that is the 1970 boundaries), where the spread is between 70,000 and 115,000. The average number of voters per elected representative over the whole Province will be 13,200. Secondly, the system of the single transferable vote itself suggests certain limitations. It is generally held that the number of seats in any constituency ought to be at least four, in order to get the benefits of multiple representation, but not more than eight, because a larger figure would produce an

191
unwieldy number of candidates on the ballot paper. These limits, four to eight, will also operate in the local government elections, which, as your Lordships will be aware, are to be held on May 30. Thus the range of seats for the Assembly elections will be within those limits—from five seats in the case of Fermanagh and South Tyrone to eight seats in the case of South Antrim.
The Bill provides in Clause 2(2) that the franchise to be used at the election to the Assembly shall be the same as for a General Election to the Northern Ireland Parliament—that is, what is known as the Stormont franchise, which also applies to the local government elections. The Bill deals in Clause 3 with qualifications for membership. These generally follow the Westminster practice, with the necessary modifications which govern membership of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Your Lordships might be interested to know that one of these modifications is that a person will not be disqualified from being a Member of the Assembly simply because he is a Peer.
Certain matters will be determined by order under the Bill, if it is approved. First, there is the date of the election. This should not cause any difficulty because, as I said earlier, the date has already been announced, June 28, and has been generally welcomed. Then there is the date of the first meeting of the Assembly. Noble Lords may be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made the point in another place that it would be inappropriate, in his view, for the Assembly to meet while the Northern Ireland Parliament was still in existence, even though standing prorogued. The first meeting of the new Assembly therefore is not likely to take place until after the Northern Ireland Parliament has been dissolved, which of course can only follow the passing into law of the main constitutional Bill.
The rules for the election will also be contained in an Order which, among other things, will establish the hours of polling, which are intended to be from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., as for the Border poll and also for local government elections. Extensive arrangements are again envisaged for postal voting, following closely the practice in the two earlier elections to which
192
I have referred. The responsibility for the conduct of the election will lie with the chief electoral officer.
Before leaving the conduct of the election, I ought perhaps to say to your Lordships what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said in another place; namely, that a major effort is now being made in Northern Ireland to explain the system of single transferable vote. Every household will receive a booklet, and a more detailed booklet will be available on request in public places—post offices, Government offices and so on—and the Government are enlisting the aid of newspapers, television and radio to explain the system to the voter. There is no reason why the new system should not easily be understood. So far as the voter is concerned, all he or she has to do is to number the candidates in order of preference—as many candidates, or as few, as the voter wishes. The process of counting the votes is complicated but we have been training staff for the count and this training will be completed in good time. Many other matters, including the procedure of the Assembly and its duration, will follow in the main constitutional Bill. Therefore, all that the measure before your Lordships to-day seeks to do is to meet the general concern that elections to the new Assembly in Northern Ireland should be held with the least possible delay. It also honours a commitment given by the Government in another place with the support of all Parties. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a;.—(Lord Windlesham.)
3.41 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we from this side of the House certainly welcome this Bill. It has been introduced in this rapid way because of the urgency felt by a number of Members both of your Lordships' House and of another place with regard to the date of Election. Therefore, even if there are defects or Amendments which might be made to the Bill, I think it is right for the Bill to pass all through its stages to-day, unamended, bearing in mind that it concerns a matter of the very greatest urgency. The Bill was debated very fully in another place and contributions to the discussion were made by a number of Members who are

193
representative of Northern Ireland. Although we have some knowledge and some representation from Northern Ireland, we are not ourselves nearly so fully qualified to discuss details of the Election arrangements. Furthermore, as the noble Lord has said, there are a number of aspects concerning the democratic machinery in Northern Ireland which will have to be dealt with by subsequent legislation. There are, however, a few points I should like to make, and my noble friend Lady White will be winding up later on this side. It would be helpful if the Government were able to throw some further light on cerain matters. Perhaps one of the most striking aspects of the Bill is the introduction of proportional representation of the kind represented by a single transferable vote. This is a procedure of which we as a country have little knowledge or familiarity, though we know that the Liberal Party, for reasons which do not commend themselves to the Conservative and Labour Parties, have nevertheless given a good deal of consideration to it.
On the last occasion when we debated the possibility of the application of proportional representation in Northern Ireland, I said I had a preference for the list system. I accept that in all the circumstances the Government were probably right at this stage to go for the single transferable vote. Indeed, when I advocated the list system on the last occasion, the Proportional Representation Society wrote to me a most convincing letter, which at that time I thought gave the victory hands down to the single transferable vote. The fact remains that in other countries the list system has been regarded as preferable and the Northern Ireland Labour Party, for reasons which seemed to me to be cogent, certainly at one time favoured this. I do not suggest that we should seek to alter what appears in the Bill, but I should like to say there is a danger that this will be regarded as an experiment which will prove itself on a single occasion. I believe there is something to be said for recognising that the full value of proportional representation with the single transferable vote system will only be felt over a number of years, especially (as we all hope will happen) as sectarian voting is gradually broken down. This Bill provides for proportional representation only in this particular
194
Election and there is no guarantee that it will continue in the future or indeed that we should stick to the constituencies that are proposed.
On the one hand, I think it is important for us to conclude that it will need more than one Election to judge the value of proportional representation in Northern Ireland. Secondly, I believe we must be prepared, because the Bill does not go beyond a single Election, to consider that there may be better constitutional arrangements which might be made. We know there has been criticism of the arrangements, but again I think that the Government were right in the circumstances to adopt the Westminster constituencies. Therefore, I hope that a very careful study will be made of the results on this occasion and that we shall certainly continue with this in Northern Ireland—assuming the Government policy is successful, as we all pray it will be—and certainly not exclude the possibility of other forms of proportional representation. As I say, I accept that in the circumstances the single transferable vote is the best system. It may be in fact the best in all circumstances, but I am not sufficiently expert to do other than note that there are other systems—indeed, it has been suggested there are many hundreds of systems of proportional representation.
The next point I should like to deal with concerns the powers of the Minister under the Bill. In another place the Opposition moved an Amendment but, if my recollection is right, they did not divide the House on it. The Amendment sought to make the powers of the Minister to make Orders subject to the Affirmative procedure. The Government replied that in the circumstances, and considering the difficulties of the time scale involved, this was not possible. Again, I would not press the Government to alter their decision. If we had more time I think we might in fact have chosen one of the many forms of Affirmative procedure which would have met the Government's requirements. But the Minister in another place said that he was prepared to have discussions with Members of Parliament in the course of the drafting of the Orders; and it would be very helpful if the noble Lord could repeat that assurance to your Lordships to-day. If we are likely to have an Order of this kind at short notice, it would

195
be helpful if those of us who have consistently taken an interest in Northern Ireland could at least be informed of what is happening even though consultation might not always be possible. So any amplification that the noble Lord can give of the undertaking given in another place would be welcome.
There is also another question on which we are not clear. It relates to new vacancies and abstentions. Again, we appreciate that this Bill is, so to speak, a "one-off" Bill. In another place we were told that the issue of vacancies would be dealt with under the constitutional Bill, I find it a little difficult to see how that should be, but again one must accept what the Government say. I assume, however, that it is possible to raise this issue now, and all I would ask is that the Government, in considering how this matter shall be dealt with, should not proceed by a simple election to fill one vacancy but might well adopt the system, which I believe applies in Malta, by which it is possible to go back to the original voting that took place, apply the principle of proportional representation and take the next person on the list. Within a P.R. set-up, this is acceptable in a way that in a single vote arrangement it would not be. I believe that this was proposed in regard to the Republic of Ireland by Garrat Fitzgerald.
My Lords, one could discuss at some length the urgency and the need for this election to the Assembly to be a success. We have had many debates on Northern Ireland and I think there is a quite exceptional degree of unanimity in your Lordships' House in regard to the importance of the Government's policy in this matter being given a fair and determined chance of support by the people of Northern Ireland. It is therefore disturbing to hear of proposals and suggestions of opposition, and indeed of boycotting of the elections. We do not even know what is going to happen in the local government elections which are coming soon. The only further message that can go out from your Lordships' House is the hope that both those on the Republican side and those on the ultra Loyalist side will do their utmost to make the Government's proposals work and to seek change under the democratic machinery that is here proposed. It is disturbing to hear
196
of the falling away of support for Mr. Faulkner, even though this may perhaps give further opportunities to the Centre Party. My Lords, we shall be taking the Committee stage to-day, and it may be that there will be a few points to raise here and there on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, but certainly from the Opposition point of view we do not intend to move any Amendments or in any way to impede the progress of a Bill of such importance.
3.54 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLS: My Lords, my only reason for speaking at this stage is to explain very shortly the absence of His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury from the House this afternoon. As a number of your Lordships may be aware, he is in Northern Ireland this week and is fulfilling a very heavy list of engagements. Had he been present he would most certainly have welcomed this Bill and the further constructive move by Her Majesty's Government to give to Northern Ireland a greater degree of self-government than is given to any other part of the United Kingdom. No doubt he would have underlined also the two great prerequisites for any real settlement: an end to violence and the provision under the Constitution for just treatment of the minority. All I wish to say is that this Bill is undoubtedly a constructive move. No one imagines that a new constitutional structure in itself and by itself will bring peace, but I think it will provide for men of good will in Northern Ireland a new framework for peace and a new incentive to work for peace which, in the end, will build strong enough to stand up to and to overcome the ruthlessness of those bent and brought up under terror.
3.55 p.m.
LORD MONSON: My Lords, I happened to be in Malta at the time of the June 1971 Malta General Election which was held under the single transferable vote system and I was impressed by how closely the popular vote reflected the final allocation of seats between the Parties. It is almost certainly the case that a single transferable vote system which provides for at least five Members per constituency very closely reflects the wishes of the electorate as a whole, always provided that the ratio of Members to electors in each

197
seat is as consistent as possible. In this respect there is a lot to be said for the system. In cases where there are as few as four Members per constituency distortions can occur, so that in the Republic of Ireland, for instance, at least two Governments have been elected on minority votes, but of course as the number of Members to be returned per seat in Northern Ireland ranges from five to eight, this particular problem is not likely to arise. However, it would be wrong to think that the system is a perfect one, still less a panacea for all the ills of Ulster. First of all, it is highly complex and, despite the efforts being made by the Government, as cited by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—the radio and television and Press advertising, and the booklets being sent to every household—I cannot help but feel that quite a few voters—by the nature of things the elderly and perhaps the less educated ones—will get things wrong, putting X's instead of numbers or else numbering their preferences in the reverse order to what they intend.
More important is the weakening of the link between a Member and his constituents. In Britain, and for the most part in Northern Ireland too, a constituent who violently opposes his M.P.'s political beliefs can none the less approach him confident in the knowledge that his particular problem will be dealt with as efficiently and expeditiously as possible irrespective of the constituent's political beliefs. There is a two-way benefit here too: the M.P.'s investigations into his constituent's particular problems may well broaden his own political outlook. One need only think of a certain well known Northern Ireland political figure, noted in times gone by for his violently expressed antipathy to the Pope, who upon his election has become by all accounts an excellent constituency M.P., much respected by his Roman Catholic constituents for the efforts he has made on their behalf; and the benefit has been a mutual one in that by general consensus he has become a more calm, moderate and statesmanlike figure. Now in a constituency returning seven or eight Members a constituent who wants some grievance remedied will naturally tend to seek out the Member approximating most closely to his sectarian affiliations and political beliefs. Thus the mental segregation which tends to characterise Nor-
198
them Ireland will tend to become accentuated (if only in a small way) rather than diminished, and in this respect at least the single transferable vote system is regressive rather than beneficial.
I mentioned just now that the merits of the system depended on the ratio of Members to electors in each seat being as consistent as possible. I am bound to say I am not entirely confident that this has been achieved under the proposed allocation of seats as between constituencies. I entirely take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that there is less unfairness in the proposed allocation of seats than in the present single Member constituencies where the electorate in the largest constituency is approximately 64 per cent. greater than that in the smallest. Under the proposed arrangements the discrepancy will be reduced to about 21 per cent. But I believe that had the number of seats been altered from 78 to 81 or 82 the discrepancy could have been lessened. I am not alone in this view; I notice that the Labour Party in another place abstained on an Amendment to increase the number of seats from 78 to 81. It seems very peculiar, for instance, that while the electorate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is almost exactly the same as that in West Belfast, the number of Members in the former constituency will be only five instead of six. Similarly, both North Antrim and South Antrim are somewhat under-represented. I read carefully the remarks of the Secretary of State in another place when on April 16 he explained that it was difficult to have nine Members for a constituency as this would make a ballot paper unduly long. But the disadvantages of having an eight-Member constituency in this case outweigh the advantages. In the past there has been criticism, rightly or wrongly, of unfair drawing of constituency boundaries in Northern Ireland. In such a sensitive situation it seems a pity that this Government lay themselves open to charges, however minor—and I accept they are minor—of unfairness.
Then there is the question of the electoral register. As I understand it, because of a grave error made by a computer, the names of up to 10,000 voters have been mistakenly omitted from the register, including those of many people who had previously been on it

199
and had been voting in every election for up to 50 years. Whole streets in Belfast have apparently been omitted. Can the noble Lord, in his reply, tell us what decision has been taken regarding a supplementary register to deal with these unfortunate cases?
My Lords, I should like to conclude by echoing a plea made from all quarters of another place just over two weeks ago; namely, that very serious consideration should be given to the possibility of extending the hours for which the polling booths remain open on June 28. Members who went over as observers of the Northern Ireland Border Poll reported seeing long queues at polling stations when the booths closed—and this was an occasion when only a simple "Yes" or "No" vote was required. And of course voting for the new Assembly is going to be a very much more lengthy and time-consuming affair.
Reverting to the example of Malta, polling there is spread over three days. This is partly to enable people who live and are registered in Gozo for electoral purposes but are working in Malta, or vice versa, to travel back to their place of registration—and in rough weather the ferries are not always reliable. But it is also because it is thought right, given the complexities of the single transferable vote system, to give voters adequate time to complete their preferences and avoid congestion at the polling stations. This practice has the additional merit, incidentally, of ensuring a very high turnout—a most commendable 91 per cent. at the 1971 election.
I do not for a moment suggest that three or even two days are needed in Northern Ireland, but I do believe that electors generally need more than 12 hours—perhaps ten or eleven of which are spent at work and getting to and from work—to operate effectively this complex system of balloting. Additionally, special factors apply in Northern Ireland. Consider, for instance, families living in remote farms in areas suffering from terrorist activity, who may, for one reason or another, be ineligible for postal vote. For reasons of security they may not wish to leave their house or farm unoccupied, or to leave aged or infirm relatives alone. Therefore various members of a one-car
200
family may need to make repeated journeys to a fairly distant polling station.
While I entirely appreciate the importance of security considerations, according to my rough calculations sunrise in Belfast on June 28 will occur at approximately 5.20 a.m., British Summer Time, while sunset is not until 10.5 p.m. This factor should ease the security problem considerably. Would the noble Lord therefore consider the possibility of either extending the hours of polling by half an hour at each end of the day, or, alternatively, by tacking on one hour at the end of the day so that the polls close at 9 p.m. rather than 8 p.m.?
4.6 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that it is slightly regrettable that on this occasion, when we are enacting a Bill dealing with proportional representation, there should be no voice from the Liberal Benches. But the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has explained to me that unfortunately he is not able to remain with us to-day and therefore we are deprived of this historic pleasure.
I was deeply impressed by the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Monson (whom we congratulate on his birthday, do we not?), and I was especially interested in it because I too was recently in Malta and made some inquiries there as to the way in which a comparable system works. I recognise that this is a Bill for one election only and therefore it is not appropriate or possible for us to go into it in such detail as we would certainly wish to do were we undertaking more permanent legislation. But there are one or two points one should emphasise. I have no sympathy with those in another place who suggest that there should be 100 Members for the new Assembly; but I am disposed to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that it would have been happier had one had perhaps 81 Members, or conceivably 82, for the reasons which he gave. One realises that the Government thought of the figure of 78, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, by adding together the number of Members of the present House (it is still nominally in existence) and the Senate. But it leads to certain inequities. It appeared to me on reading the debate in another place that there was a strong case to be made for an additional Member for Fermanagh, Tyrone and for

201
North and South Antrim. I appreciate that we shall have to accept the present situation for this Bill and await the further revisions which I assume will take place, as a result of the Boundary Commission recommendations, in any future Election.
I am not clear what the situation is regarding the Boundary Commission's work in Northern Ireland; possibly the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, could enlighten us on that. I am not sure whether they are conditioned as they are in England and Wales as to the time limits in which they can make further revisions of the boundaries. I assume that, as we are doing this through a completely new Assembly, they will be entirely free to start at once with revising boundaries subsequent to the Election which is due to take place on June 28. I am afraid that I do not go all the way with the noble Lord my noble Leader in his preference for the list system. I have watched it in Continental countries and it appeared to me to give the Party machines far too much power. For that theoretical reason, apart from any other consideration, I much prefer the single transferable vote.
As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, says, it is entirely true that as soon as you depart from single Member constituencies to some degree you weaken the link between a Member who has sole responsibility in a Parliamentary sense for his constituency and the people whom he represents. On the other hand, if we wish to have the benefits of proportional representation we have to accept some of the disadvantages; and I should have thought that the single transferable vote with constituencies numbering no fewer than about four nor more than eight or nine—that is the absolute maximum the electorate can digest—gives considerable other advantages in the representation of minorities. Therefore, one has to accept the disadvantage of weakening the personal responsibility which a Member feels when he or she represents one constituency. I hope that this will not prove to be too great a disadvantage in practice. We can only wish the Government well in their educative process.
I am sure there will be problems in regard to these Elections, especially where one has as many as eight votes for a candidate dealt with in order of
202
preference, and I should have thought there was a strong case for extending the poll time. I appreciate that this means possibly having extra personnel to man the polls and this may be a difficulty, but it is going to take longer for most people to complete their papers and it means that very special care will have to be given to the physical conditions in the polling stations: that there shall be sufficient polling booths; that they will be able to take quite a large number of people at any one moment of time, because it really is essential in such an Important Election that one should not have a situation in which people are left standing outside the polling stations at the end of the day, not being able to get in. I have had that happen even in an Election in my own constituency, and it is something which must be looked at with quite particular care when one is embarking on a relatively new system. This system has been tried before but not within the experience of most of those who will be voting on this occasion. Therefore, I hope that we may have the most firm assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that every possible care is being taken, and I hope that further thought may yet be given to extending the polling hours. It is not uncommon in this country to have polling for a longer period than 12 hours, and I should like to have reassurances on that.
There was also the point in regard to the allegations that were made in another place about defects in the existing register and the large number of persons who had been left off it. I saw the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, indicating dissent when this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, but I think we might have from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, a clear statement of the position. As it was stated in another place it was certainly disquieting.
Finally, I should be glad if we could have one word on a matter which was raised several times when we were debating the White Paper and that is the position of those who might wish to stand who belong to Sinn Fein or some other organisation which is not approved of under the law in Northern Ireland. My understanding is that the Bill which is at present before us does nothing to prevent such a person from standing for election if he or she so wishes, but that

203
he or she might be caught by other legislation. As this is a matter of some political consequence, I think it is only right to ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to explain to us precisely what the position is. I believe there are one or two other points of detail which we might wish to raise, and which could be raised on the Committee stage.
4.14 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate for the points they have raised and for the constructive tone in which the debate has been conducted. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned that initially he had been attracted to the list system of proportional representation, but that he had been partly converted in favour of the single transferable vote by a study of some further information which had reached him. The noble Baroness, Lady White, put her finger on one of the two reasons why S.T.V. is preferable, which is that it does not give such great power to the Party organisation. In Northern Ireland that is especially important because the Parties tend to be somewhat shifting and inchoate. Political Parties come up and go down again rapidly. The second reason is that S.T.V. is the system which has been used in three Elections in the past in Northern Ireland. It has not been used in England but. It was used in Northern Ireland in the 1920s. It is also the system which is used in the Republic of Ireland.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition also touched on a point which many noble Lords will instinctively have been sympathetic towards, when he asked why the Election rules are only to be subject to annulment in the Bill, and not to one of the various forms of Affirmative Resolution procedure which are open to your Lordships. I should like to be frank about this. It is a consequence of the very tight timetable to which we are committed. I believe most people are in favour—and certainly everyone who has spoken in the debate was in favour—of having elections as early as possible; namely, June 28. This is important. It may seem rather early by our standards, but we must remember that with the build up to July 12, and
204
with the holiday season in Northern Ireland, unless it is possible to hold an Election by the end of June it is difficult to see how it could be held before September. So there is a real reason for pressing on fast in order to maintain this timetable, which we should now, with the consent of Parliament, be able to do.
To give some idea of the tightness of the timetable the Order will authorise the final date of May 17 for the receipt of applications for postal votes. This date has already been quoted in the public advertisements as subject to the approval of Parliament. Formal notice of Election must be given not later than May 22, when nomination forms for candidates must he available. Nominations must be received by June 5, and by about the same date over one million poll cards must be issued to the electorate. I can assure your Lordships that we have looked very carefully at this timetable with the chief electoral officer, and we calculate that the Order must operate from not later than May 15, so that such arrangements can be made in time. Even this date gives the political Parties very little time in which to become familiar with the rules which will apply. We must remember that this is the first Election, on the basis of a new electoral system of proportional representation, for a brand new Assembly. So the Parties are operating on ground with which they are not familiar. The Order will necessarily be a lengthy and technical document. If Affirmative Resolution procedures had been adopted these would, for example, have involved submission to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In these circumstances I am afraid it would not have been possible to guarantee that the Order could operate from May 15. The Election would then not have been possible on June 28. These are practical considerations, and I hope your Lordships will accept them as such.
With regard to the filling of casual vacancies, this is one of the problems of proportional representation. Proportional representation can only function effectively on the S.T.V. system where there is more than one elected representative. Therefore when, through death or resignation, a casual vacancy occurs there is the alternative of either having a straightforward election to fill the single

205
vacancy which I believe, subject to correction, is what happens in the Republic of Ireland, or it is possible to go back to the original results. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition preferred the latter of these two alternatives. As he correctly said, this will be a matter for the Constitutional Bill. We shall certainly want to take account of what he said, and this is something we can debate again when the later Bill comes to us.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells told us that he was deputising for the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is in Northern Ireland this week. It has been a great encouragement to many people in Northern Ireland to have the Archbishop visiting the Province. As it happens, I know that he has been to the Corr-ymeela Community in the course of his tour, which I had the opportunity and privilege of visiting just a couple of weeks ago. I am sure the Archbishop will have found it as interesting and as elevating an experience as I did.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked a number of detailed questions, very pertinent questions if I may say so, several of which were taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady White, in her summing up. His first comment was that S.T.V. is a more difficult system to understand than the straightforward "X" system. I think it is to a certain extent, but I also think it is important not to exaggerate its complexity to the voter. Most of the complexity lies in the counting of the votes and the calculation of the result of the election, which undoubtedly is complicated. We might look back at what I believe to be a useful indicator, the 1920 Elections, and at the number of spoiled votes. One must remember that literacy then was much less than it is now. Yet the number of spoiled votes was not noticeably different on the S.T.V. elections in the 1920s from what it was in the later elections in Northern Ireland on the straightforward "X" system.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that supposing there is a situation with eight places to be filled, there would be considerably more than eight candidates, and the physical time taken to study the list and to make eight numbers in order of pre-
206
ference is bound to be much longer than to make a single cross which one has to do in a single Member constituency election.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Baroness has moved on to the question of polling hours. I was dealing with the first of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about difficulties in understanding the system. It is more complex, but as I have said, there is no reason to believe that it is too complicated for the elector to comprehend and to operate in a proper and democratic manner.
The noble Lord also put his finger on another of the disadvantages of proportional representation when he referred to the lessening of direct links between the elected representative and the voter. That is a fact. There is less of a direct link than under the straightforward "X" system as we know it. But on balance, these were the sort of considerations, the classic arguments, against proportional representation, that we had to bear in mind, and weigh against the possibility that perhaps a new system of voting in Northern Ireland might produce a rather less polarised situation than has been the case in the past. That is not to dismiss the arguments against S.T.V., because I believe that the two points which the noble Lord raised are relevant points and are ones which should be in our minds as we discuss the Bill to-day.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, felt that it would have been better if there had been 80, 81, or even 82 seats rather than 78. But this is a far more involved subject than it looks. It is not a question of just adding another representative in one constituency or another. What would have to be done is to divide the total electorate of 1,030,084 by either 78, which gives 13,200 voters per elected representative, or by the higher number. If you have a higher number of seats you have a slightly smaller quota. But the only way to judge the fairness of the system is to look at how far the actual representation in each constituency is plus or minus the quota. With 78 seats the tolerances are very close. If you just add on one more seat, for example, in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, instead of being only 717 above the quota, the result would be

207
several thousand less than the quota in that constituency. The proposals contained in the Bill have been subject to much arithmetical calculation and although inevitably certain interests argue that their own particular area, whichever it may be, is under-represented, my own impression is that in Northern Ireland the Parties most directly concerned have generally accepted that 78 seats and the system of S.T.V. based on the twelve Westminster constituencies, is a reasonably fair one for this particular election.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, both asked about longer hours of polling. We gave a good deal of consideration to this matter, and the factors that led us to the conclusion that voting should be limited to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. were as follows. First, staff recruiting difficulties would have arisen with longer hours. Duties do not end with the close of the poll and the staff at polling stations in Northern Ireland are understandably anxious to reach home in reasonable time and in the daylight hours. Secondly, there will be more polling places in the election for the Assembly (at least 100 more) than there were for the Border poll. Thirdly, the burden on the security forces would be increased by an extension of hours of polling. The security forces advised against any extension beyond twelve hours. We must remember that security has also to be provided at the twelve counting centres the day after polling day. These security considerations apply very much to the possibility of holding the election on two days. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned that in Malta elections have been held over a period of three days. In a stable and peaceful society there is much to be said for having a period of two or even three days. But unfortunately in Northern Ireland at the Border poll every single polling station had, and needed to have, both police and Army protection. It was a mammoth operation. So it would not be right to disregard advice from the security forces.
LORD MONSON: My Lords, would it not be possible, given that sunrise is at 5.20 a.m., for the polling station to be opened half an hour earlier? I appreciate the noble Lord's point about people wanting to get back home after polling
208
finishes, but if polling were to start at 7.30 a.m., instead of 8 a.m., people whose work began at 8 a.m. would be able to vote on their way to work.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there has been less pressure for earlier opening than for later closing. We have already had one election with these hours of polling so there is something to go on. One must remember, in addition, that in order to open a polling station to the electors at 8 o'clock the staff have to be there considerably earlier in order to prepare for the voters when they arrive.
Another consideration is that postal voting facilities will be available on a much wider scale than has ever applied in Northern Ireland before. For these three elections—the Border poll, the local government elections and the elections to the Assembly—postal votes will be available to registered voters virtually on demand. Then the final consideration, and one that is worth keeping in mind, is the fact that there are three elections within a four-month period. It seemed sensible that the polling hours should be consistent, that they should be the same for all the elections, 12 hours, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., with full security provided at the polling stations. If people do not want to go and vote in person then they have the opportunity of obtaining a postal vote.
As to defects in the electoral register, there were allegations that there had been an exceptionally large number of errors in the register for the Border poll. The Secretary of State asked the chief electoral officer to look into this matter to see whether there was any case for a supplementary register. But he was advised, and he accepted the advice, that there was not an abnormal level of errors in the register. That is not to say that electoral registers are always completely accurate, because they are not. What had to be looked at was to see whether there were more errors on the register under which the Border poll was conducted, which is the same register for the Assembly Election, than was normally the case. The conclusion we came to was that this was not so. We have not claimed that the electoral register is absolutely accurate, but we do not believe that it was substantially more inaccurate this time than it has been on previous occasions.

209
My Lords, I do not want to delay the House too long on this Bill. The noble Baroness finally asked about the important question, which has been in our mind as it has been in hers, of the participation of candidates standing for proscribed organisations at the elections. She stated the position quite accurately; that there is nothing in electoral law which says that a member of any organisation is prevented for that reason from standing for election. But, of course, the fact that he stands as a candidate in an election gives him no special immunity from the criminal law. What would be incitement or libel or sedition at any other time remains such at election time. It has never been the practice to exempt any person from the general obligations of the law simply because he is pursuing a political candidacy. The Secretary of State, when this matter was raised in another place, said that he regarded it as one of some significance; that he was aware of the arguments both ways; but that he did not think it right in a Bill dealing entirely with electoral machinery to try to make any change concerning the proscription of an organisation which may have been banned for other reasons. We must remember that whatever Act of Parliament made a change of this sort would apply generally, and not just at elections. This issue will come up again in any event when the Diplock Bill is debated. The proscribed organisations are contained in the Special Powers legislation which will he repealed and replaced by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. I have no doubt that this matter is something we shall be discussing on that occasion.
On Question, Bill read 2a;.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of April 18):
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
(The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The election.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: We thought it inappropriate to put down Amendments which might have focused the particular points we wished to raise. None the less, since there will be further legislation of this kind, it seemed to me worth while to deal with one or two points. On Clause 2, I am bound to say I am not entirely convinced by the reply that the noble Lord gave with regard to the Negative and the Affirmative procedures. I am prepared not to press the Government on this matter, but the Government are still, in a sense, at risk on their Orders, in so far as they are subject to the threat of annulment. It might have been possible to establish an Affirmative procedure of a fairly rapid kind. We might even have overcome the difficulty that we, though not another place, insist that Orders under both the Affirmative and the Negative Resolution procedures (we used not to have Orders under the Negative Resolution procedure go before our Special Orders Committee, if my recollection is correct, but they all go to the Joint Scrutiny Committee) are not considered unless they have been before the Committee. I am speaking, I must confess, without having checked facts, but my point really is that I have not been entirely convinced.
I am not going to press the noble Lord, because in the Northern Ireland situation we have to remember that, simply because we are not convinced by an argument, we do not wish to weaken the ability of Ministers to put into effect what in their best judgment they feel needs to be done. None the less, perhaps the noble Lord will give some further consideration to these arguments, even if he does not wish to do it to-day. It may be that he will be able to convince me on another occasion that his argument is right.
The second point I want to make is this—this seems to be the most convenient method, short of putting down an Amendment. It concerns the hours in which polling takes place, on which matter both my noble friend Lady White and the noble Lord, Lord Monson (may I also wish him many happy returns of the day?) have spoken with great force. Will the noble Lord once again consider this subject, because, if I understand it

211
rightly, it is under this clause that the necessary Order will be made. I am just asking whether I understand rightly that the polling hours will be determined, and for all I know may already have been determined, by Order. If not, I am not quite clear how else they will be fixed. Perhaps they do not need to be fixed by Order, but if they do the matter needs further consideration, it would seem to me, because the powers of the Secretary of State are so enormous in this regard. He is able
… to make any provision concerning the election under this Act, or any matter relating to the election, and in particular …".
The Bill is not restrictive. It just emphasises certain things, but he can really do what he likes in regard to the election. It may well be that on further consideration, even if he has not had representations in regard to earlier opening (the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is well informed of the movement of the sun) he will consider it worth while to open the poll earlier. All I am asking in regard to Clause 2 is whether it is under this clause that the Minister has power to fix the hours. It may be that this is the sort of clause which could give rise to a large number of points, but I have deliberately confined mine to two matters.
LORD WINDLESHAM: What the noble Lord said in regard to the second point is quite correct. This is the clause—Clause 2(5) and Clause 2(6)—under which the Secretary of State will make regulations which will determine the conduct of the election for the new Assembly. I explained in some detail a few minutes ago what the requirements of the timetable were, and there is no need to go through it all again. I think most people in your Lordships' House, and in another place, would accept that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State over this last year has been particularly anxious to consult Parliament and to make sure that Parliament has a full opportunity to express views on policies in Northern Ireland, and he has been keen to respond as sympathetically as possible. As we saw it, the need to hold the election on June 28 was paramount, and it is the demands set by the timetable that have made necessary the procedure contained in the Bill.
212
I explained the reason why we believed it would be difficult to alter the twelve-hour period of polling from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. when I spoke in reply to the debate on Second Reading. Had I known the point would arise again, I should perhaps have done better to shorten my reply and to have said what I did in Committee. In brief, there are substantial staffing considerations, security considerations, and reasons of consistency for having the same hours of polling for the three elections, of which this will be the third. As I mentioned, this is in the context of extensive postal voting. Therefore people who, for one reason or another, do not feel that it would be convenient to vote or safe for them to go to the polling place in person, will have an opportunity to obtain a form and to cast their vote by post.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is precisely because we are in the Committee stage that we can probe the Minister on this matter. He gave very powerful arguments, but it seems to me that the matter ought to be reconsidered in the light of the arguments which have been put forward in this House. It seems to me that his argument about postal voting weakens his argument for an extension of hours—and I accept that there is a problem with the officers who man the polling stations—because those individuals who are frightened to go to the polling station late at night will be able to take advantage of it. I have not examined the postal voting arrangements, but what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked was whether the polling stations could open half-an-hour earlier. The fact that people will have this opportunity of postal voting will not alter the difficulties which will arise if the polling stations close with people still wanting to vote.
My noble friend gave the example of a misfortune which happened to her, and those of us who have undergone election procedures which have produced very narrow majorities—and I speak as somebody who was once elected with a majority of 16—know that this can be a very sensitive matter. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who was also a Member of another place, maybe with a larger majority, will realise how anxious candidates always are to get in every single vote they can. Although I accept

213
the arguments, I am bound to make the strongest request for this matter to be reconsidered. If, at the end of the day, the Government come to the view that they cannot alter the closing hour, then I shall accept that. I admit that we on these Benches are slightly prejudiced, because we always reckon that our votes come out in the evening or very early in the morning, and here we are not thinking quite so much in terms of the normal Party political pattern. All I am saying to the noble Lord—and I am not asking him necessarily to answer our points; he has given his arguments and I fully accept that they are important—is that if under this clause he has powers to fix the hours, he will reconsider the matter even at this late stage. It is not his further arguments that I want; it is for him to consider the arguments which noble Lords have put forward. He has always been very helpful and I am not attacking him personally. I am only asking him to think further on this matter.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sometimes says when he is with us, it is for those proposing Amendments to make out a case for changing what is in a Bill, rather than the other way round. The Committee has to balance the strength of the case for making a change with the strength of the case for adhering to what is proposed. The regulations under the Order will be the authority for issuing instructions to presiding officers. I believe that is the procedure.
Representations have also been made to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about this question of polling hours and whether or not an extra half-hour might be added at the end of the day. I know he is giving careful consideration to whether, in the light of those representations, he should alter the period of polling from 8 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. Noble Lords will understand that I am not in a position to give an absolute undertaking at the point, but I can say that I shall pass on to my right honourable friend the strong feelings expressed by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and others in this House. I am sure that he will want to take them into account in reaching a final decision.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I am not sure
214
whether his quotation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was very relevant, especially when we are all being so co-operative, are not putting down Amendments and are not seeking to divide the Committee on this matter. But the noble Lord, as always, has listened, and all we have asked is that he should consider the arguments. We believe that quite a powerful case has been made, but we shall be content with whatever he and his colleagues decide.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Disqualification for membership of Assembly]:
4.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: I wonder whether the noble Lord can clarify a point which was raised in another place but which, so far as I know, was not answered? Am I correct in supposing that this disqualification provision would not preclude a citizen of the Republic of Ireland from standing as a candidate, if he were nominated?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Subject to correction, I believe that is the position.
LORD SHACKLETON: Looking at the list of disqualifications—and I am not sure whether my noble friend referred to Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957—it is an enormous one. I could take up some time on it, but I shall not do so, pointing out some rather inappropriate disqualifications in regard to what I understand is not a full Parliamentary Assembly. Obviously, the Government had to move quickly and the simplest course was to have a list and take powers to amend it; for example, so far as I know, Northern Irish schoolteachers are not allowed to stand for the House of Commons, either. But it is a curious and complicated situation, which one would have liked to explore more fully. All I would ask of the noble Lord is an assurance that these disqualifications are being looked at, because it would be very annoying to find some quite absurd anomaly. For example, as I understand it, a member of the University Grants Committee would not be eligible to be

215
a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I think he might be eligible to be a member of a county council. Clearly, this is not an area where I am very expert, and all I am asking is whether there is a review going on in regard to the disqualifications.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It was necessary to adopt some yardstick for deciding which categories of person should be qualified to stand for election to the Assembly, and which should be disqualified. It seemed that the most sensible course was to apply to this Bill the categories contained in Parts II and III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957. I am pleased to see noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have come armed with their copy of this Statute. There are three categories: incapacity by reason of physical or mental disability; incapacity by reason of circumstances, character or conduct; and incapacity by reason of holding certain offices or positions. It is those disqualifications, which apply to elections to the Westminster House of Commons, which will apply to the elections to the Assembly in Northern Ireland. We have a constitutional Bill to come, and this Bill determines only the elections to this particular Assembly in this particular year. If, in the light of experience, it seems necessary to make some changes we shall certainly be ready to do so.
BARONESS WHITE: With great respect, I think we ought to press the noble Lord a little further, not perhaps in regard to this particular Bill, because we understand the position about that, but in regard to the future. After all, what is the point of having these disqualifications in relation to office? It surely is because of the exercise of patronage and the fear that that will have some disadvantageous effect upon the Legislature, if it were possible to remain a Member of the Legislature and also to enjoy the patronage dispensed by the Government of the day. We can all see the reason for having disqualifications on those grounds—disqualification from membership of the Legislature in which the Government of the day have a majority. But this will not apply to the great majority of offices which are listed in the Schedules to the 1957 Act. It therefore appears to me
216
that the Assembly in Northern Ireland ought to be looked at from a slightly different point of view. We are told that it is not a full Parliament; and it is a peculiar body, of course. But ought not this aspect really to be looked at? Ought we not to have some assurance that it will be looked at in relation to the actual body which is being established?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Does the noble Baroness really think that certain individuals who are disqualified by reason of holding certain offices or positions—fortunately I have a list of them here—should be eligible to be Members of the Assembly in Northern Ireland? For instance, certain judges? Does the noble Baroness feel that judges should be Members of an elected Assembly? Or civil servants; or members of the Regular Armed Forces; or members of the police force; or Members of Legislatures of countries or territories outside the Commonwealth? It seems to me entirely reasonable that these categories should not be eligible for membership of the new Assembly.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may say so, this is an example of the dangers of instant legislation, and it is on our own heads that we are not able to go into this. In the Schedule to the Bill—and I may say that I had not come prepared; it is merely because there are Statutes conveniently available in the House—there is a fantastically long list of people who are disqualified under Parts II and III of the first Schedule to the 1957 Act. The noble Lord has read out a number who quite clearly ought not to be eligible, but there are a number of others. For instance, there is something called a "substituted officer of the Royal Air Force". I always wondered whether I was a substituted officer; I do not quite know. Why is it that a Northern Ireland teacher in, I think it is, a direct grant school is not eligible, but in England, curiously enough, I think a teacher is? There may be good reasons for that.
Since we do not yet know—and this is the only defence the Government may have in this matter—precisely what the Assembly is going to do, or what powers it is going to have, it may be arguable that the disqualifications should be as wide as in the case of the House of Commons. But, none the less, it is not going to be a full-time operation. These

217
disabilities do not apply to Members of the House of Lords. There are particular reasons in regard to another place; and this all springs from offices of profit, not necessarily fitness to participate and contribute. It is perfectly open for a teacher to be a Member of your Lordships' House. It is apparently open for somebody who is hired as a public relations officer to speak in a debate in your Lordships' House. If I may say so to the noble Lord, we are merely asking him whether he is giving consideration to the powers that he is seeking to take in this Bill to remove disqualifications. From what he has said it appears that in fact no such consideration is taking place. It may be that this is only a small matter and that it will be put right at another time, but I am bound to put on record some dissatisfaction with the noble Lord's answer.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
4.57 p.m.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution),
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a;.—(Lord Windlesham.)
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I do not think we should let this Bill pass from us without expressing just one word of hope that the new Assembly that is to be elected under the provisions of this Bill will be such that it will contribute to the peaceful settlement of affairs in Northern Ireland. Those of us who supported the White Paper a short time ago and who felt that the provisions made in this Bill, as part of it, deserved the support of men of good will, hope very much indeed that what we have been dealing with this afternoon will be one step in the direction of more peaceful community life and cooperation in this very troubled Province. Of course, it is not for us to make comments on the political situation in Northern Ireland at the present time beyond saying, I think—I hope fairly—
218
that those who appear not to understand the true import of the White Paper are mistaken, and we hope that they will try to operate it, and this Bill, in the spirit in which it was put forward by the Government and which we on this side of the House, at any rate, warmly support.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, if I may I should merely like from these Benches to support cordially what the noble Baroness has just said. To some extent this is an act of faith, and nobody can tell how it will work out in practice. But I think we can all feel greatly encouraged by the calm and reasonable reception that the White Paper has had, and that therefore we can proceed in a spirit of great hope. I am sure every Member of your Lordships' House will cordially echo the good wishes that the noble Baroness has so courteously expressed.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, have said. I find it most appropriate to end the proceedings on this Bill with sentiments of this kind, and I certainly very much appreciate them. We must all hope that this Assembly, which is the first of the new political institutions which are being established in Northern Ireland, will result in a more peaceful and more stable form of Government and will help to heal the wounds of the past.
On Question, Bill read 3a;, and passed.

OATHS AND DECLARATIONS (REPEALS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1973
5.0 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM to move, That the Oaths and Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on April 4, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. The effect of this Order—made under the urgent procedure—is to repeal and amend existing Northern Ireland legislation concerning oaths and declarations so as to bring it into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government's intention to do this was announced in the White Paper. The Constitutional Bill which will give effect to our proposals will

219
provide that the Northern Ireland Assembly may not impose upon any member of an appointed body, or upon any person paid out of public funds, any requirement to make any form of oath or declaration except when such an oath or declaration is required in comparable circumstances in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Constitutional Bill will be presented to Parliament as soon as possible, but the Government have decided to act by way of an Order in Council in order to make the change in time for the local elections which will be held on May 30. In the past there has been a requirement for district councillors to take an oath of allegiance. This Order fulfils that aim but the problem is not confined solely to district councillors. The present position is full of anomalies. For example, the existing law provides that all full-time civil servants including manual and industrial staff must take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty and Her Government of Northern Ireland; but in local government, only elected members and certain clerical and administrative workers have been required to take the oath, while manual workers are not required to do so. On October 1 this year when local government is reorganised a considerable number of manual workers will be transferred to the service of the, regional government and unless the law was changed such employees would be required to take an oath for the first time, although their jobs would remain exactly the same. Again, those members of the new Area Boards—the Area Boards for Education and Libraries and Health and Personal Social Services—who are appointed by Ministers are not required to take an oath, but those Board members who are to be drawn from elected members of the new district councils would, unless the law was changed, have taken an oath on election to their respective councils.
The Order, therefore, in addition to relieving local councillors of the requirement to swear an oath of allegiance, brings such anomalies to an end by repealing the relevant legislation requiring certain local government officers, and Northern Ireland civil servants, to take an oath. It also repeals the same requirement for officers of the Youth Em-
220
ployment Service and school teachers, so that all these officials, together with elected members, are placed in the same position as their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. The question of oaths has been a continuous issue in the past in Northern Ireland; and there is, as so often, a long history; but in the present circumstances looking towards the sort of new political institutions we are concerned to construct in Northern Ireland the Government have no doubt that a measure of this kind is justified. I beg to move.
5.4 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I would wholeheartedly support the Government in the introduction of this Order. It was subject to some contentious debate in another place. In fact, it was taken to a Division but as there was no quorum that had no effect. It would have been carried in any case. It was then subsequently passed. The noble Lord is quite correct in saying that there is a long history, both in Northern Ireland and in Southern Ireland, on this question of oaths of allegiance. It was one of the sticking points in the treaty negotiations of many years ago and the main Act concerned in this, the Promissory Oaths Act 1923, was enacted at a time when political feelings were running very high. As the debate in the other place indicated, they have not died down, even now. I am sure that the Government are right to take this step. It is the honourable person who is caught by the provision of an oath of allegiance; dishonourable persons can take an oath and disregard it. That has happened on occasion. One ought not to offer that kind of temptation, it seems to me, if it is not absolutely essential for the public weal. Therefore, it is to us entirely satisfactory that we should bring the matter into line with the provisions in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I gather from the explanation given by the Minister in another place that a member of a local authority in this country does make a declaration of acceptance of office. This should not in any way be confused with the oath of allegiance mentioned in this Order. I presume that some such act may be required of those elected in the forthcoming local government elections in Northern Ireland.

221
The only other point—and I do not think the Minister touched on it—is the position of the constabulary. I understand that they still take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty but that the reference to the Government of Northern Ireland is to be omitted in future. I think that we should accept that a police officer is in a somewhat different position from a teacher or other public servant and one could accept in those circumstances (if I am correct in my interpretation) that the sort of oath that I understand would be administered in future would be appropriate. What stuck with so many people in Northern Ireland in the previous arrangements was that they had to take an oath not only to the Crown but also to the Government of Northern Ireland which many of them wholeheartedly detested.
5.7 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it was fitting that the noble Baroness began with an historical reference to the Treaty negotiations. Her father, Tom Jones, played a notable part in achieving the settlement which was reached at that time. I have read Volume III of the Whitehall Diaries covering that period with considerable interest, if at times with a feeling of resignation and exasperation because so many things seem to be recurring again, fifty years later, which the noble Baroness's father and Lloyd George grappled with. As regards the future position of councillors, elected district councillors in Northern Ireland will still make a declaration as they do in the rest of the United Kingdom. Their declaration will be that they take the said office upon themselves and will duly and faithfully fulfil the duties thereof according to the best of their judgment and ability. It no longer contains any reference to rendering true and faithful allegiance to the Queen and to her Government in Northern Ireland. Similarly, what the noble Baroness said regarding the Royal Ulster Constabulary was accurate. The police in Northern Ireland, as in Britain, will continue to swear an oath. The form in Northern Ireland is somewhat different from what it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, but the reference to the Government in Northern Ireland has been deleted for the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPERANNUATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1973
5.10 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on April 10, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second of these Orders standing in my name on the Notice Paper. The need for this draft Order arises from the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland which we have debated in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. Inevitably any reorganisation of this nature alters the pattern of certain jobs, either by changing their relative importance or by abolishing them altogether. In these circumstances certain senior officers of existing local authorities and other bodies may prefer to retire and take their pension early, rather than be declared redundant or have to accept a post of lesser status or salary. Any senior officer who is affected in this way may, of course, have a claim to compensation, and normally this would he provided within the framework of what is known as the "Crombie Code"—a well-established code of compensation which has been used in all local government reorganisation throughout the United Kingdom. In anticipation of the reorganisation due to be put into effect in England and Wales next year, a number of amendments to this Code have recently been agreed. These revised arrangements stem from proposals by the Royal Commission on Local Government.
The provisions of the draft Order before your Lordships give effect to the Government's undertaking that staff who are affected by the reorganisation in Northern Ireland will enjoy the benefit of compensation terms equal to those available to their counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom. They closely follow Section 260 of the Local Government Act for England, which makes similar provisions. The Order will enable senior officers of the existing local authorities and certain other bodies affected by reorganisation, such as the Northern Ireland Hospitals Authority or the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland, to have an option to retire early with the benefit

223
of additional years added to their reckonable service for superannuation. Regulations to be made under Article 3 will lay down those who may be entitled to exercise this option. It is anticipated that the scheme will be limited in practice to chief officers and deputy chief officers of 50 years of age or more who may not fit easily into the new organisation. My Lords, the Order is a short one, dealing only with the limited purpose which I have described. It follows the practice in the rest of the United Kingdom, and accordingly I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Draft Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on April 10. be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, we have no comment to make from this side of the House except to say that we welcome the Order. It appears to deal justly with those affected by local government reorganisation and we are glad that the provisions are to be made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HALLMARKING BILL
5.13 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so I am very conscious of a strong sense of trepidation and humility, since the Bill marks the first time in no less than 700 years, since the Statute of 1238, that an attempt has been made to codify or consolidate the law on hallmarking. What is the law on hallmarking, my Lords? There are no fewer than 66 Acts of Parliament on this subject up to 1900, many of which are now defunct; and, as we shall see, 32 Acts are to be repealed either wholly or partly in the course of this Bill.
About twenty minutes ago the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned the danger of instant legislation, and it is interesting to note that there is an almost precisely opposite danger: that of legislating too slowly. Because more than a century ago, in 1855, a Select Committee was set up to examine the question of hall-marking and to report, which it did in 1856. A Bill was prepared in 1857 and
224
was allowed to lie on the Table. Then there was a pause, as indeed there always has been a pause, it seems, with regard to hallmarking, because once again a Select Committee was appointed, in the year 1878. This Committee reported in 1879 and once again the matter slipped from the grasp of the Government of the day. Nearly 80 years passed and a Departmental Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Leonard Stone, was set up by the Board of Trade in 1955 and this Committee examined a very lengthy and detailed number of Acts—all those on the Statute Book—and reported on the subject in 1959. Once again the matter could not be included in Government time for the usual reason, that it was not the right moment to legislate on hallmarking. I am very glad to say that at last, in 1973, due to private enterprise and initiative, this measure is now before your Lordships' House.
What are the purposes of this Bill? They are four within the central and essential aim of the protection of the public from fraud. The first purpose is to consolidate the existing laws; the second, to bring up to date the exemption list; the third, to bring platinum within the ambit of hallmarking and the fourth to set up a Hallmarking Council to take the place of the unofficial joint committee of assay offices. I should like to pay tribute to those who have produced this measure because it has been produced without the aid of that admirable but very overworked body of people, the Parliamentary draftsmen. It is due to the skill, the expertise and, if I may say so, the absolutely firm reluctance of those responsible for the Bill to be pushed out of the Parliamentary programme, that this measure is now before your Lordships. I should like to pay tribute to them, and especially to our legal advisers.
My Lords, I am a layman and not a lawyer, and I share with many of your Lordships, who also are not so qualified, a desire for clarification which is not always apparent in definitions. So I turned to your Lordships' Library and a copy of the Oxford Dictionary to discover a definition of the word "hallmark". I found the following definition:
"An impression stamped on gold, silver or pewter article without which it may not legally be sold. (In the United Kingdom stamped in Goldsmiths' Hall or at various Government assay offices) and consisting

225
usually of four marks indicating respectively the town where the metal was assayed, the standard of fineness, the maker's initial and the date."
I think that is a clear definition of a hallmark. We shall find a very much more sophisticated and legalistic definition in the Bill which I will not attempt to inflict on your Lordships at the moment.
The second aim of the Bill is to bring up to date the exemptions. The whole history of hallmarking ran into trouble in 1738, when a Statute was enacted bringing in exemptions for the first time. From that date there has been a very long list of exempted articles, articles which were either too small to carry a hallmark or which for some other reason are not suitable for that purpose. The list is set out in Part II of Schedule I to the Bill. I will not go into that Schedule in any detail, except to say that the list has been restricted to essential exemption, such as bullion, coinage, goods in transit to an assay office and so on. However, all existing articles which are exempt under present law will for the time being be allowed to be sold under the description of "gold" or "silver".
My Lords, the third aim of this Bill is to bring platinum within the ambit of hallmarking. Platinum is not a very familiar metal because until three years ago it remained on the restricted list from the 1939–45 War. It is a metal which, as your Lordships know, is a chemical element, a precious silver, white metal. But it did not receive the recognition of those in ancient times because it was hardly known. The 16th century Conquistadors in South America, the Spaniards, found large deposits of this precious metal in the Rio del Pinto; they named it platina del pinto, and we now call it platinum. I think it may be of special interest to your Lordships to know what the relative value of platinum, gold and silver is to-day, because herein lies one of the principal reasons why we must bring platinum within the ambit of hall-marking. The current market price of silver, give or take a very small amount, is 2·8p per gramme; gold is 89p per gramme, and platinum no less than 193p per gramme. So one can say straight away that platinum is more than twice as valuable as gold.
226
Why has platinum lacked attention from both the jewellery and the antique trades? I think it is largely because it is extremely scarce, due to being on the restricted list; and, naturally, it has been restricted by the price and also by Government intervention. But in the handling of precious metals as a whole there are indefinable areas of human conduct—questions of fashion, custom and so on: at one time in history a metal is considered very precious, and at another time less precious. I can give what I think is a good example from the Bible, in the First Book of Kings, chapter 10, verse 21, where we read:
"All King Solomon's drinking vessels were of gold, all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold: none were of silver: it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon."
That takes one's breath away, but this chapter of the First Book of Kings, containing a very graphic account of King Solomon's domestic organisation, gives one a totally different impression of the scale of values between silver and gold in ancient times. We are now introducing platinum to hallmarking and it is more than timely that we should do so. I feel sure there is no need to press the argument further.
Fourthly, there is the question of the Hallmarking Council, of which we hope the existing joint committee of four assay offices will become a part. The original suggestion put forward was that 10 members should be appointed directly by the assay offices, four of whom should be representative of the trade. Here I pause, because I think it is extremely significant that these assay offices, in each case founded by a Royal Charter or a Statutory Instrument several centuries ago, are willing to give up a high degree of independence and authority which they have within their own sphere for the benefit of managing and organising hall-marking in the future. I speak before your Lordships as a guardian of the standard of wrought plate in Birmingham. This year we are celebrating our bicentenary. This, however, is a relative newcomer as an assay office compared with London, where the Charter dates back 700 years: but the London office, which has enjoyed special privileges and has taken such a significant part from the very beginnings of the organisation of the

227
trade in England, is prepared to submerge its identity in a Hallmarking Council. I would press my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn on this point. There is a willingness among the offices to co-operate and to submerge their identity, and I hope that at the same time there will be a willingness on the part of the Government to recognise this fact and to accord to those offices a degree of right to nominate those persons whom they think desirable. This point has been brought up and discussed at considerable length in another place, and I do not feel that I should continue with it any further at this stage.
My Lords, before I conclude I should like to draw attention to certain clauses in the Bill, and particularly to Clause 1, which is an important clause. On April 6, the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Emery, made particular reference to this clause when he said, in col. 802 of the OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons):
"I am glad to note that in the new clause"—
that is, Clause 1—
"the basis of the law is to be the prohibition of the use of the descriptive words 'gold', 'silver' and 'platinum', unless the descriptions are supported by a hallmark. The problems which the definition of these terms created formed one of the features of the Stone Report. I am glad that the Bill abandons the principle that it is illegal to produce goods which fail to meet the minimum standard of the metal concerned. The reason for this is that such provision is clearly ineffective in preventing circulation of such wares, coupled with the provision of sub-standard wares that applies to many pieces of historical or artistic merit, or even of sentimental value, which would be at quite unjustified peril of destruction."
No doubt other speakers will identify the other clauses of the Bill, but I should like particularly to draw attention to Clause 22, which proposes the repeal of a number of enactments. Here I will close as I opened and comment on the fact that either the whole or part of thirty-two Acts is going to be affected. I would recall a conversation some years ago with the late Lady Swanborough, who, as a layman like myself, said:
"When we are participating in the legislative process of your Lordships' House, surely it is our duty when we make a new enactment to tear up at least a dozen old ones."
This is one of the purposes of the Bill before your Lordships, and in tearing
228
up at least a proportion of the enactments—certainly twenty—we shall be fulfilling this task. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a;. —(Lord Sandys.)
5.30 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for introducing this Bill and for having explained it in such a splendid way. I should also like to thank him personally, because the fact that I agreed to take part in this debate has enabled me to look up the very fascinating history of goldsmiths and silversmiths in this country. I believe we are all fascinated by precious metals, whether or not we can afford to own them and certainly our language is filled with expressions such as "silver-tongued" (though that usually refers to a rogue) and "as good as gold". There is no doubt that the history of precious metals goes back a very long way. Apart from the sheer beauty of the metals themselves, the skill of the craftsmen in fashioning them has provided many people with objects of beauty.
We congratulate the noble Lord on, as he so rightly said, tearing up so many old Statutes and bringing up to date some very archaic laws. The system of hall-marking has been jealously guarded and strictly enforced by Governments and Guilds alike. The first record I could find of Guilds was in the 12th Century, and it is a rather interesting reference. We learn that a number of goldsmiths in London were fined for having established themselves into a Guild without Royal authority—not quite like the Dorchester Martyrs, my Lords, but a similar penalty. Then in the 13th century the Goldsmiths were required to appoint six of their number to superintend the craft and their authority was confirmed and they were ordered to assay every piece of plate and, if worthy, stamp it with the leopard's head. So there is little doubt that we are here talking about a very ancient form of consumer protection.
I think there is little doubt that the average shopper knows that the hallmark brings a measure of protection, without always completely understanding what

229
exactly the hallmark means. I understand that the trade, particularly, have been asking for some time for the implementation of the Stone Committee's recommendations, and, so far as I can see, the Bill has very largely followed many of those recommendations. What the consumer always wants in descriptions and in the protection of a mark is the guarantee that the goods which carry this mark will have some reliability, whereas goods which do not carry such a mark may well be as good but in fact there is no way in which their reliability can be established.
I think the reference to the use of the words "gold" and "silver" is identified with the use of the word "wool". The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will recall that some years ago we had a long discussion about the way some garments were described as being "wool-style" but which on investigation proved to contain no wool at all. I have often been puzzled by the use of the words "rolled gold". Though I understand that such an article does contain gold, it would be interesting to know exactly how much.
It is also obvious that it is necessary to have this Bill, since I understand that certain parts of the Trade Descriptions Act confuse the issue in relation to hall-marking. As regards the Hallmarking Council, I noted that in the other place there was a great debate which resulted in some consumer representatives being named as Council members. I understand that certainly one of your Lordships feels that at least one place should be reserved for a retailer. As a great supporter of consumer representation, I certainly feel that there should be no objection to this, if the Government see fit to accept an Amendment which may be presented.
The debate in another place also seemed to range around the use of the word "millesimal". I understand that a pure article is represented by one thousand and anything less being a fraction of a thousand. I realise that this is much simpler, just as we realise that the decimal system is simpler; but I wonder what meaning the average customer attaches to the word "carat". Again, I feel that the customer will be a little confused about this word, as against the use of a word which he understands. However, I would make no attempt to
230
oppose something of this nature. This is a splendid little Bill, long awaited both by the customer and by the trade, and I wish it a fair passage through your Lordships' House.
5.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, it may be convenient if I intervene at this stage to indicate the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards this Bill and perhaps to sketch in also a little of the recent background. First, on behalf of the Government, I should like to congratulate Mr. Jerry Wiggin on having introduced this Bill in another place and my noble friend Lord Sandys on bringing it before your Lordships to-day and on introducing it, if I may say so, so agreeably and clearly, as befits a guardian of the standard of the Wrought Plate of Birmingham.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said, there can be few traditions in the United Kingdom with so long a history as hallmarking. Indeed the very word "hallmark" has long been a synonym in the English language for a guarantee of quality. But hallmarking is not only a tradition: it is also a form of consumer protection, as she said, which is thoroughly modern in concept. For a hallmark not only gives the consumer a concise description of the type of metal from which the article is made, together with an indication of the standard of fineness of that metal it also provides an independent certification that this information is correct. In the United Kingdom an additional mark is added to indicate the year in which the assay and marking is carried out—a kind of birth certificate. And since the hallmark is stamped upon the article in question, the original purchaser and successive purchasers are provided with a virtually permanent piece of informative labelling, coupled with certificates of both age and accuracy.
With such an exemplary system in operation, one might well ask, "Why is this Bill necessary?" I think that my noble friend, Lord Sandys, gave the answer very successfully when he pointed out the necessity for clearing the decks, as it were, and getting rid of old lumber in this matter. The answer is, quite simply, that, satisfactory though the

231
system may be in principle, the law itself is sadly out of date. Moreover, good though the informative labelling may be, there is still some scope for improvement to make it easier for the ordinary consumer to understand.
The law, as my noble friend said, is spread over many Statutes extending back over many centuries. Not only is it confused; in some cases it prevents quite reasonable activities. Let me give a few examples of its present defects. The law differs in different parts of the Kingdom; it puts pieces of some artistic, historical or other merit in danger of destruction simply because they happen to be slightly below the legal minimum standard of fineness set out for the metal; it prevents United Kingdom manufacturers from producing wares containing precious metals to lower standards acceptable overseas; it even prevents our manufacturers from exporting gold or silver wares unhallmarked, whether or not an overseas buyer wants them hallmarked. In fact in many cases overseas buyers are not only willing but eager to have a United Kingdom hallmark; but if for some reason hallmarking is not wanted it seems absurd that such export orders have to be turned down because our law requires them to be hallmarked for export. The present law also fails to cover articles made from platinum, which is considerably more valuable than gold and is in these days quite often used for jewellery. Lastly, the present law is often regarded overseas as a deliberate attempt to erect a barrier against the overseas producer seeking to enter the United Kingdom market.
It was my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft who took the first step to be taken in recent times towards reform of the hall-marking laws when he decided some seventeen years ago, as President of the Board of Trade, to set up a Departmental Committee to examine the law and make recommendations for revision. The work carried out by this Committee under its Chairman, Sir Leonard Stone, was invaluable in highlighting the bad features of the present law as well as the good. Unfortunately, as my noble friend has said, it was not then possible to act on that Committee's Report. But rather more recently, as the House will be aware from the interest which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has shown in the
232
subject, the Board of Trade, and latterly the Department of Trade and Industry, have been reviewing the Committee's proposals with the assistance of the assay offices and in consultation with many other interested parties. Indeed the Department were about to issue their conclusions in the shape of a consultative document when the opportunity came to Mr. Jerry Wiggin to introduce this Bill in another place. The Government willingly put the results of the review at his disposal, and many of the ideas which were distilled from the large number of very detailed replies the Department received have found their way into this Bill.
Perhaps the most important change which the Bill would make to the present law is to abandon the concept that articles which contain some precious metal but not enough to make them of hallmark-able standards should be treated as prohibited goods. The present prohibition has led to endless difficulties without producing commensurate benefits. Coupled with the exemption given to articles for export and the powers to recognise marks applied overseas, to which I shall come back later, this new approach would dispose of the defects in the present law to which I have referred. For example, if the Bill is approved sub-standard pieces of jewellery will no longer be in danger of destruction; they will simply be denied the description, "gold" or "silver". Our manufacturers will be free to make whatever their customers overseas want to buy, and to have such articles hallmarked or not as their customer wishes, subject, of course, to the requirement that the articles are of a fineness which can be hallmarked. As has already been said, the Bill extends to platinum, and there is provision to accept hallmarks applied overseas.
The Government welcome the line which the Bill has adopted as a considerable improvement on the present situation and I am sure that this line will prove equally welcome to traders and to consumers. The Bill in our view does a great deal for consumers as well as for traders. It offers protection against deception by providing that, apart from a very few exceptions, any description, "gold", "silver" or "platinum" must be accompanied by a hallmark. The consumer can, if he wishes, be his own

233
policeman; for in future he will be able to verify for himself quite simply whether the description used by the trader is correct. He will be able to compare the markings on an article with a standard notice for which the Bill provides and which dealers will be obliged to display in their shops or trading place.
However, the Bill does not leave it to the customer alone to ensure that descriptions are honest. For the first time in this kind of legislation, it provides the means of effective nationwide enforcement through the local weights and measures authorities, who are already providing the public with an excellent service in enforcing consumer protection legislation; and I am sure that they will not resent the added duties which this Bill imposes, but rather welcome the Bill as yet another weapon in their armoury. I have already referred to the view sometimes held overseas that hallmarking systems such as ours act as a barrier to trade. Perhaps this is sometimes exaggerated. But we have to recognise that international trade in articles of precious metal is expanding; and a trading nation such as our own must always be on guard against accusations of unfair practices restrictive of international trade. As the House will know, the United Kingdom, together with six of its former partners in the European Free Trade Association, drew up a convention to facilitate trade in articles liable under the domestic law of each country to be hallmarked. The convention provides that articles of gold, silver or platinum assayed and marked in accordance with agreed standards in a participating country, including a common convention mark associated with the fineness mark, are to be exempt from further assaying and marking on importation into another participating country. I am glad to see that the Bill would make hallmarks applied overseas in conformity with this convention acceptable in the United Kingdom.
There are two other provisions of the Bill on which I should comment. They are provisions to which my noble friend has drawn attention. First, Clause 12 and Schedule 3 provide for the establishment of a new body to be called the British Hallmarking Council. This has no parallel under the present law. There is, of course, the Joint Committee of Assay Offices but that is hardly compare-
234
able, but the Stone Committee recommended that some such body should be set up. In brief, its function will be to co-ordinate the activities of the individual assay offices, all four of which will remain, as now—I stress this to my noble friend because he quoted the Master of the London Assay Offices as referring to submerging its identity in the Council—independent bodies under the control of their hoards of guardians or other governing bodies.
It was a Government Amendment introduced on Report in another place that provided that all appointments to the Council will be made by the Secretary of State, apart from two additional members which the Council, once it is established, may co-opt. The Government attach particular importance to this, since the Council is thereby shown to be an independent body; its members being chosen by virtue of the particular contribution which each can make to the efficient running of the Council and the discharge of its functions. If your Lordships will look at Schedule 3 you will see that ten of the members have to be suitably qualified by virtue of their knowledge and experience of hallmarking and are to be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with each of the four assay offices, and the Secretary of State will invite those offices to submit names of one or more persons appearing to them suitable for appointment and shall take any such submission into account.
The second provision is the one in Schedule 2 requiring that all indications of fineness must be expressed millesimally; that is, in the number of parts per thousand. Some may think that the long tradition of indicating the fineness of silver by symbols should continue, at any rate in regard to silver produced in the United Kingdom, and be extended to platinum which is coming within the scope of the law for the first time. The Government's view of this matter has been influenced a good deal by the representations made to the Department by consumer interests. Almost without exception these interests took the view that indications of fineness should be expressed in a single uniform manner throughout, and that, of the methods available, the millesimal system is the best. The Government agree with this

235
view. It would be quite absurd to perpetuate the present, confusing systems of indicating fineness which is shown in one way for one metal and in a different way for another, depending on its origin. In the case of silver, at present imported articles are marked millesimally, but home-produced silver bears only a symbol. However well this symbol may be known to the initiated, it is unlikely to have much meaning for the vast majority of shoppers. The Government therefore welcome the provisions of the Bill requiring millesimal marking of fineness for all three precious metals, while allowing the traditional symbols to continue to be used on all articles of precious metal which can be shown to have been made in the United Kingdom. My Lords, I hope your Lordships will welcome this opportunity to reform a branch of the law. It is not just a consolidation; it is very much a reform of a branch of the law which one hundred and seventeen years ago was pronounced to be in a most confused and unsatisfactory state, and I hope, too, that you will agree that the proposals are on the right lines and will support my noble friend in giving the Bill a Second Reading to-night.
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: My Lords, at the outset I must declare an interest in this Bill, not indeed a pecuniary interest but one which arises from the fact that I am at this moment the Chairman of what may be described reasonably, but not very accurately, as the London Assay Office and also Chairman of the Joint Committee of the Assay Offices of Great Britain to which both my noble friends have already referred. If I pass over some of the ground which both noble Lords have so well and so expertly covered I hope your Lordships will forgive me. If I speak, as you may think, a little one-sidedly from the point of view of the assay offices it is because such knowledge as I have of these matters derives from the offices which I have just declared to your Lordships.
As must be clear from what has already been said, the assay offices welcome this Bill of which they may justly claim to have been the sponsors. We are extremely grateful to Mr. Jerry Wiggin in the other
236
place and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in your Lordships' House, for bringing this Bill forward, and, indeed, to Her Majesty's Government for their ready co-operation and help in all the discussions which led to the extremely rapid preparation of the Bill.
The Bill is necessarily technical and may appear complicated; but its object is extremely simple: I do not think I am re-stating it too tautologically if I say that for some 600 years or so, and increasingly in the past 200 years, the assay offices have had the task of ensuring that gold and silver wares offered for sale to the public conform to proper standards of fineness, and of certifying by hallmarking them that they are in fact what they purport to be. That is why the offices claim with some pride to be the oldest bodies in existence set up expressly for the protection of the consumer.
With the passage of time, as has already been said, the relevant Statutes have inevitably in many respects become out of date; nomenclatures have changed, techniques have advanced, and so on. The result is that over recent years it has been difficult for the assay offices to make sure they were carrying out their duties under the law. This Bill, as has been said, is designed to put all that right, to introduce certain new and valuable provisions, and also (which I do not think has been mentioned) an element of flexibility for the future so that it may be possible to obtain any necessary changes which experience may show to be desirable without waiting another hundred years for them.
Hallmarking may appear a limited and even rather esoteric affair, but it affects an enormous number of people. Almost everyone these days owns, or wants to own, some article of gold or silver, however small—wedding rings, for example. In so doing, they want to be assured that it is gold and silver and not something different but that looks like it. Perhaps I might illustrate this by giving your Lordships a few simple figures. They concern the work of the London Assay Office with which I am most familiar. In the year ended March 31, 1973, that office marked well over 4,600.000 articles of gold, and nearly 1,200,000 articles of silver. The weight of the gold from which the gold articles were made was over 20 metric tons, and

237
that of silver over 30 metric tons. The London Assay Office marks under half the articles marked by the assay offices of this country as a whole. So, if you double these figures and add a bit you get a rough idea of what is involved. I have not tried to estimate the bullion value, but it must be very great indeed. The value of the finished articles, especially the silver ones where the workmanship bears a higher proportion to the total value than it does with the more precious metal, gold, is greater still.
It follows from these figures that the average weight per article is very small. Indeed, in London for gold it is about five grammes per article. If your Lordships find it difficult, as I do, to translate grammes into something more familiar, the present 5p or old shilling piece weighs just a little more than five grammes; so it will be seen that the greater proportion of these articles is very small indeed. In the case of silver the average weight is about 30 grammes per article. This means that the price per article is also relatively small. It has been estimated (though it is possibly not much more than a fairly good guess) that for the greater proportion of gold and silver articles sold in this country the retail price will not exceed £25. So we are not dealing with a small number of wealthy, well-informed people who might be able to look after themselves, but overwhelmingly with those of limited means and limited knowledge.
If I might give your Lordships a simple example: the small yellow crosses, which are frequently to be seen suspended from the necks of young ladies, if made of brass, as they sometimes are, will sell for about 80p—anyhow, well under £1. If the same crosses were made in 22-carat gold, as they sometimes are, their value in the shop would be probably over £15. So you have a large difference in value between articles which superficially look very much the same. That is where the extreme importance of a proper system of hallmarking comes in. Without it, there could be great profit to the dishonest dealer, and great temptation to deceive the ignorant. But I should like to say at once that where the assay offices meet with infringements of the law these in the great majority of cases come from ignorance of what is required rather than from dishonesty. Of course the public are
238
equally defrauded whichever may be the cause.
The objects of the Bill are to protect the consumer and in so doing to maintain the high reputation which British gold and silver pieces enjoy, not only at home but also—which is not unimportant—throughout the civilised world. We are grateful to the Government and all who have helped to bring this Bill before your Lordships. I am sorry to feel bound to mention two points on which some considerable disagreement still remains. They were both touched upon by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn.
The first concerns the precise marks to be put on wares under the Bill; they are called the millesimal marks. I should like to make only one short observation on this, for it is possible that it may be discussed later in Committee if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading to-night. It is said that it is easier to distinguish things by numbers than by symbols. But if you take three not dissimilar metals such as silver, white gold and platinum, you would under this system have a mark which said 925 on silver, 325 on white gold, if it were of 9-carat standard—and correspondingly if it were higher—and probably a different symbol for platinum. How on earth does any one looking at three apparently identical pieces of metal bearing different figures know which is the more precious and which is the less precious? You may know what the fineness is if you know what the metal is. If you do not know what the metal is, the fineness is not helpful. There is some clearing up to be done there, and I hope that your Lordships will be prepared to give that further consideration.
The second point concerns the Hall-marking Council. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has just said that under this Bill the assay offices remain independent. That may be so in name, but I have some doubts as to what that independence is going to be worth, or might be worth, under the system of appointment which the Government put through in another place. It is about ten years since the assay offices, who until then had been operating independently and sometimes, in the ambiguous state of the law, inconsistently, set up the present joint committee to co-ordinate their activities in

239
the interest of uniformity and, should need arise, to speak with one voice to the Government or other outside bodies; and it is now proposed, as your Lordships have heard, to set up the Hallmarking Council as a formal body to take the place of this committee.
So far, so good. But it is also proposed, as your Lordships have also heard, that all the members of the Council except two, whom the Council itself may co-opt, should be appointed by the Secretary of State, and that the assay offices, although they are indeed to be consulted and invited to submit names, shall have no right to direct representation upon it. They are nevertheless to provide from their gross revenues for the whole of the Council's expenses, and those revenues are themselves to be governed by the Council which is to direct what charges the assay offices may make for assaying hallmarking. Therefore, while the assay offices are to remain responsible for their own costs they are to have no direct say in determining the charges for their services from which those costs will have to be met, or, for that matter, in anything else which the Council appointed by the Secretary of State may see fit to require.
Why the Government have adopted this attitude I do not presume to understand. I suppose it could stem from a conviction that the public are best served, even in these small matters, by concentrating the maximum possible power in Whitehall. If that should be so I shall make no further comment, except to say that it is a proposition that I find it exceedingly difficult to agree to. But if, as I think was clear from what was said in the other place and, if I heard him aright, from some words which fell from my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn this afternoon, it is believed that unless all the members are Government appointees the assay offices might be, or might seem to be, judges in their own cause, surely that is based on a misconception of the relationship between the Hallmarking Council and the individual offices, and indeed between the individual offices and each other. For 600 years the offices have had only one main purpose, that for which they were appointed
240
—to protect the public—and to imply that they are no longer fit to do this, or that they might not seem to be fit to do this, or that they might be in some sort of unholy alliance with the trade, is to shoot very wide of the mark. The trade have indeed always been represented on the governing bodies of the assay offices, and it is proposed that they shall continue to be represented on the new Council—and very useful they can be. But they have never been in the majority and there has never been any doubt whatever of the assay offices being independent and impartial in their judgments. Whatever your Lordships may think of the Government's proposal in this matter in principle I find it hard to believe that in practice—which is what really matters—it is the best way of securing an economical and efficient system of hallmarking.
I will say no more on the subject now, since if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading it can be more appropriately discussed in detail at the Committee stage. But, having said so much, I should like only to add that I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. In almost every respect it has secured the support not only of, I believe, the Government, but of all other interests concerned, and when it is enacted it should prove to be greatly to the benefit of the public at large.
6.4 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, having had some experience of law reform I am interested in this Bill from two points of view. The first is because it has become obvious in the last two or three years that nearly all those fields of law which now require reform are fields for which the Department of Trade and Industry claim responsibility—company law, substantive insurance law, consumer credit, in particular the very important Crowther Committee recommendations, bankruptcy law (we have been waiting now for 15 years for the Ministry to implement the recommendation of the Blagden Committee), and then hallmarking. The second is because I think that the honourable Member for Weston-superMare, Mr. Wiggin, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, have made a striking contribution to what an individual can do towards law reform. Some of us are

241
used to thinking that if you have a Private Member's Bill you do not stand much chance unless the Bill is very short and is about a subject that is fairly simple and that can be explained to ordinary people. It is therefore an act of outstanding courage to have taken on this Bill.
When Sir Leslie Scarman was Chairman of the Law Commission he referred to the history of our hallmarking law. The early ordinances of the 13th century, before there were Acts of Parliament, were in Latin, and the legislation of the 14th and 15th centuries is nearly all in Norman French and contains words of which nobody to-day can understand the meaning. The Act of 1300 is the only Act I have come across in the Statutes at large which has been provided with little footnotes querying whether the meaning of a particular phrase in Norman French might be this or that. After mentioning the ordinance of 1238 and the Statute of 1300, Sir Leslie Scarman said:
"These two ordinances—for Parliament had as yet hardly aspired to the production of Statute law—were the forerunners of long and confused strands of Statute law regulating the standards to be observed in the manufacture of gold and silver. So confused had the law become that in 1855 a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the offices assaying silver and cold wares in the United Kingdom. This Committee reported in 1856 that the law as in a most confused and unsatisfactory state and strongly recommended that its anomalies and confusion should be ended by consolidating into one Statute all the provisions requisite to the establishment and regulation of assay offices throughout the United Kingdom."
The Ministry did nothing at all. In 1878 another Select Committee looked into the matter and reported the existence of considerable uncertainty in the application of the law in consequence of the number of Statutes in which it is found, and expressed the opinion that consolidation and amendment should be carried out without further delay. The Ministry did nothing at all.
In a case Westwood v. Cann in 1952, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said:
"I would observe that in 1856 and 1879 select committees said that the law as to hall-marking was uncertain owing to the number of Statutes in which it was to be found, and they expressed the opinion that the consolidation and amendment of the law should be carried out without further delay. Now, 73 years later, in 1952, I may perhaps be permitted to express the same opinion."
242
The Ministry did absolutely nothing at all. In 1959, a departmental committee under the chairmanship of Sir Leonard Stone took another look at hallmarking and reached the by now hardly original conclusion:
"That the numerous Statutes that touch upon hallmarking and the protection of the public against the flood of adulteration in purchases of wrought gold and wrought silver are so confused and obsolete as to be incapable of being patched up by amendment so as to form a workable and enforceable code."
They then went on to recommend the substitution of a consolidating Statute in place of the existing confusion.
It is a remarkable record for any Government Department to have survived 116 years of procrastination and delay. The introduction of this Bill reflects, if I may say so, the greatest credit on Mr. Wiggin and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and great discredit on the Government Department which has left to a private individual the introduction of a Bill covering such a difficult field after so many years. Had the Minister not already spoken I should have inquired whether perhaps if I introduced a Private Member's Bill on bankruptcy before the next Session I might be equally successful. To my mind it is rather pathetic that this one Department—and it is not true of any other Department—seems to find it impossible to do their own law reform: a noble spirit like the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, must take on the task for them. In the circumstances I do not propose to raise any technical points on the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will soon give it a speedy Second Reading.
6.10 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this afternoon I can claim only a layman's interest in the matter before your Lordships. I should certainly like to thank my noble friend Lord Sandys for the very careful and rather exciting way in which he introduced the matter before your Lordships. Having become interested, one finds that delving back into the books and histories of the plate manufacturers, the plate markers, back to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, provides a fascinating history. It is in order that some of the fascination of that history should not be destroyed that I hope to draw your Lordships'

243
attention to at least one aspect of hall-marking which could very well be left alone.
The hour advances, and it would not be helpful were I to say all that I had intended, save perhaps to emphasise so much of what the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, has already said, particularly in relation to the role of the Assay Office. My interest has been bolstered somewhat by correspondence and discussion with the National Association of Goldsmiths and various other people, including other retailers of precious metals, and some who auction used and secondhand precious metals. No official body, no trading interest, so far as I can find out, has found any quarrel whatsoever with the Assay Office. That is an extraordinary thing, because the offices are self-governing and self-elected, and have been for hundreds of years, and it is extraordinary that an organisation so made up can for so long hold the confidence of the consumer and the customer—the customer being the manufacturer sending his goods for assay, the consumer being the retailer buying those assayed goods. Any diminution of their standing in the world of precious metals, I believe, should be reasonably resisted. If any change is to come about there should be given some very sound justification.
I should like quickly to move specifically to parts of the Bill, although I do not intend to deal with it in detail. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, inferred that one of your Lordships would raise a point regarding the Hall-marking Council. I shall be doing that. If I am to take the argument logically, I should perhaps turn quickly to Clause 4 and Schedule 2. That is the clause and the Schedule dealing with the new hallmarking, the millesimal marking. The noble Viscount illustrated the numerical point of marking of the precious metals. I recall that two years ago, during the passage of another Bill on driving licences, we were all required to put down names, initials, dates of birth, and so on, so that we could be enumerated upon the computer record. I complained then of the over-interest in numerical identification. I do so again in this matter. A letter from the Chairman of the National Association of
244
Goldsmiths sent to me about three weeks ago tells me that if you placed on a counter a silver-gold ring, a platinum ring and a silver ring with some numbers inside, it would be the sterling ring which would carry the higher number and it would be that ring which the uninitiated would plump for.
Because of the increase in value in precious metals, particularly silver, much secondhand silver is to be found in auction rooms. I understand that because of the method by which the millesimal number will have to be applied to the article, with continued usage and cleaning in the case of silver that number will fast disappear, whereas gold, and silver-gold as well, is not cleaned nearly so frequently as sterling silver; nor in fact is platinum. So one can see that for practical purposes the millesimal marking can confuse a would-be purchaser and that after a very short while it will disappear. My friends in the National Association of Goldsmiths, who, incidentally, represent the vast bulk of retail outlets both in new and used products, write and say:
"Retailers are much more concerned with the consumer than other bodies, and we do not therefore favour millesimal markings on silver and platinum"—
particularly, for those reasons. They go on to say:
"We do not mind millesimal marks being used for gold and white gold, but consider that their use should be excluded from silver and platinum."
That is a very large body of people which is daily coming into contact with the consumer for whom this Bill is attempting to add further protection.
LORD DRUNIALBYN: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive me for interrupting for a moment? He suggested that millesimal marking would disappear in a short time, but I am sure he realises that other countries abroad are firmly committed to the millesimal marking, so it certainly would not disappear.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I understand exactly what my noble friend on the Front Bench tells me but I fear that he has misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was trying to suggest the physical disappearance of the number by usage and cleaning, to which silver is more prone than is gold and platinum.

245
I turn now to Clause 12 and Schedule 3 which deal with the setting-up of the Hallmarking Council. This is quite new and, so far as I have been able to find out from manufacturers and retailers, in principle there is absolutely no objection to this at all. It is rather surprising that for all of the 600 or 700 years that the Assay Offices, the Goldsmiths Company, London, the Wrought Plate in Birmingham and, I think it is, the Mystery of Goldsmiths in some other place, who have had control of these matters, there has been no firm connecting link with the precious metals industry and Government, and as I understand it, this will be the first time. I believe that everybody is really quite happy about the functions.
The unhappiness comes about because of the constitution of the Council. In reading the debate in another place it struck me as being quite extraordinary that there should be a complete about-face on the part of the Government regarding the constitution and the method by which persons shall be appointed to the Council. I am not sufficient of a Parliamentarian to argue the case for the starred Amendment that appeared two hours before the matter was to be debated. It appeared to catch Mr. Wiggin's friends a little on the wrong foot. Perhaps that is a Parliamentary way of doing it; I do not know. What I do know is that it seems absolutely wrong that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to appoint his own, as it were, nominees in all of the 16 places that the Council provides, bearing only in mind that he has to pay due regard to various submissions that may be made to him. This seems to me to be pushing Governmental influence much too far. While I appreciate that the Council may be accountable to the Secretary of State, or whichever Minister it may be, I really do not think that he should direct even who their chairman shall be. It seems to me that if sixteen deemed good and faithful men or women are to settle down to oversee this very important business, at the very least they should be allowed to work under the direction of their own nominated chairman.
I would close my comments on this part of the Bill by suggesting that a little later, on Committee stage, we look at the method of appointment and the kind
246
of people to be appointed. It seems reasonable to me that, while the assay offices should be represented and the consumer interests are certain to be interested, the retailer also should have some kind of interest in the making of the forms in which the Council will work. Apart from these two matters, the Bill seems to me tremendously exciting, as I say, in so far as it covers matters stretching over so many hundreds of years. I hope it will have a comparatively easy passage and an early enactment.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
6.24 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I would thank each one of your Lordships who has so kindly taken part in the Second Reading debate here this afternoon. I think that the twin objectives of protection of the public and promotion of trade, from what your Lordships have said, have been clearly demonstrated as being fulfilled by the Bill as we see it at this stage. Nevertheless, there will be a full opportunity at Committee stage for further discussion and no doubt amendment. I would particularly thank my noble friend Lord Runciman for so clearly setting before your Lordships the enormous amount of hallmarking which is carried out in the City of London alone, and also comparing it with that in the country as a whole. This by itself justifies very early consideration of this matter. I was particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, the father and progenitor of the Law Commission, for what he said in regard to the law reform aspect of this Bill.
I would stress particularly that I associate myself most closely with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. He directed our attention to the question of confusion on millesimal marking, and I think demonstrated the difficulty of both the public and the retail trade generally in assimilating this for practical reasons. These are the practicalities in day-to-day living which we shall be encountering. As the time-scale of this Bill is a long one, we hope that, if it reaches the Statute Book, which we trust it will do before very long, it will have an enduring nature. I ask my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn to consider most carefully and weigh in his

247
mind the special and particular views of the retail trade and many others which have been laid before him.
There can be no doubt whatsoever of the interest of the public in gold and silver and platinum, and I think this was more than anything demonstrated by the prodigious interest in the Tutankhamun Exhibition at the British Museum only a matter of a few months ago. We live in an age of inflation, of throw-away substances, and things which we can see, touch and feel have an enduring value which is of special importance—my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth mentioned in his closing remarks the question of the sustained standard. He referred to the role of the assay offices in this respect, and this will be noted with particular pleasure by all the offices who work and who direct their efforts in this particular regard.
I do not wish to lay more stress on the assay than perhaps I should on the trade, and once again may I bring to your Lordships' attention the promotion of trade which this measure seeks to achieve. The question of reproduction silver which the trade feel is most significant and important, particularly for export, is one matter on which the question of millesimal marking bears very closely. The artistic merit of particular marks is something which is cherished by people both inside and outside the trade. Special merit has attached to these marks over the centuries, and I would draw your Lordships' attention to an exhibition currently being held at Goldsmiths' Hall in the City of London by a British craftsman, Mr. Benney. In the course of his career as a craftsman, he has made a special effort to make a feature of these marks. These are things which he feels should be
248
used in an artistic manner. For the life of me, I cannot see how millesimal marks, even with the greatest discrimination, can be so used. This is a matter to which we shall direct our attention at Committee stage. Meanwhile, I would ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading in the sure knowledge that we will seek amendment in due course.
On Question, Bill read 2a;, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Northern Ireland Assembly Act,

Mercantile Credit Act.

WATER BILL
Brought from the Commons read 1a;, and to be printed.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a;, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at half past six o'clock.