Lords Sitting of 18 December 1975

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

TELEVISION LICENCES: LAWSUIT COSTS
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully in revoking television licences and bearing in mind the constitutional principle that all Her Majesty's subjects shall be treated equally before the law, they will give an assurance that the costs of the plaintiff will be borne by those responsible for the unlawful action and not by the taxpayer.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the costs of the legal action in the case of Congreve v. Home Office will be met from public funds, as is usual in cases of this kind.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether or not his Answer gives locus standi to the taxpayer in the absence of an act of indemnity to relate an action of declaratory judgment to the Attorney General and that the Attorney General no longer has absolute discretion, free of appeal, over whether or not he must accept such a relation, unlike the time when a previous Home Secretary patently broke the law by not laying the boundary orders as required by the Redistribution of Seats Act?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not pretend to have followed all the points made by the noble Lord. All I can say is that the procedure which will be followed in this case will be exactly similar to that followed in previous cases.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, quite apart from the question of costs, which is a relatively trivial matter, will the Government give an assurance that they have learned their lesson from the decision of the Court of Appeal in this case?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Home Secretary expressed apologies to another place, which was prepared to leave the matter there, and I am sure that the noble Lord will do so also.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, surely it would be only a Fascist Government which always expected to win?
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a very large proportion of the over-burdened people of this country are increasingly perturbed by the extra taxes, rates, fees and civil servants who are being imposed upon them without the blessing of legality—for example, sewerage rates on the unconnected—and will the Government do something about it?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would remember that we have a custom regarding the reading of questions. If questions are highly technical it can be forgiven. I hope that the noble Lord will bear that rule in mind.

FOREIGN AIRLINES AND ENGLISH LAW
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1968 rule 82(3), that a summons to a corporation not registered in England and Wales may be served at "any place in England and Wales where the corporation trades or conducts its business", and rule 44, which allows goods to be seized and sold to pay fines, why there should be any difficulty in taking proceedings against foreign airlines for breaches of English law.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, enforcement of the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973, to which I understand this Question refers, is the responsibility of local authorities, and one local authority had suggested that there were legal difficulties in prosecuting foreign airlines. The legal position is now being examined as a matter of urgency and it is hoped that methods will be found of ensuring that all airlines comply fully with our animal welfare requirements.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that there is considerable concern about the air transit, and shipment, too, of animals which result in the terrible loss of the lives of a large number of them, and that there is no doubt that these people can be prosecuted? I have referred in my Question to the rules which enable action to be taken not only to serve a summons on a foreign airline or shipping company but also to give effect to any judgment for the distraint of the goods of that shipping company or airline in this country.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we have noted carefully what my noble friend has said. There are different legal opinions regarding these rules. The previous ruling was based on the view of the legal adviser to the Corporation of London as the local authority which is responsible for prosecutions at Heathrow. I may say that this view is not shared by the Legal Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, nor do I myself share it. The legal advisers of my Department are closely examining this matter with the legal advisers of the local authority and we hope that a decision will be made very shortly.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, although the noble Lord may be aware that the Question refers to animals, is he aware that this is not patently clear? Can he therefore give an assurance that the same rule also applies to the carriage of persons?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not think so. The Order is quite clear. It describes animals as "four-footed beasts and other cold-blooded creatures".
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord may be technically right, but
1568
this Question seems to refer to breaches of our law by foreign airlines. May I ask the noble Lord whether foreign airlines can be prosecuted for such breaches where the carriage of persons is involved?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that is a different question. My noble friend's Question related to a previous Question that he asked on 23rd October about the carriage of animals.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's Answer, where it is clear that on a Question such as this there is a conflict of view between the legal luminaries, and where it is also obvious, from the way the noble Lord has answered the Question, that there is merit on both sides, is it not almost the duty of Parliament to step in and remove that difference of view so that the law can be operated in a clear way?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, of course it is essential for Parliament and the Press to be vigilant to see that the intentions of Parliament, and the intentions of the Order, are carried out. I am concerned that the intention of Parliament should not rely on the views of one solicitor.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, would it not be possible to make sure that there is a test case? After all, there are precedents for the Government's having test cases and there is considerable concern over the trade in live animals.
Lord STRABOLGI: That may well be so, my Lords. The view taken by the Corporation of London was that a test case was not worth bringing, but that is not the legal view taken by my Department or by other Departments or by my self, and I hope that one day it will merit a test case.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, purely for information and out of curiosity and in an earnest search for the truth, how is it that the Corporation of London, which I understand is normally confined to the square mile of the City, has anything to do with Heathrow?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Order says that the local authority concerned will be responsible.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, why is the Corporation of London the local authority for Heathrow, because I understood that the Corporation of London was limited to the square mile of the City?
Lord STRABOLGI: Well, my Lords, that is my information.

LICENSING COMPENSATION FUNDS
11.15 a.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to implement Recommendation 15.23 of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Liquor Licensing for the disposal of the licensing compensation funds which now amount to £4,000,000.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, implementation of this recommendation would require legislation and would need to be considered in the light of the Erroll Committee's other recommendations. The Government are pressing ahead with their review of these recommendations but I can see little prospect of legislation being introduced in the near future.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, does the noble Lord not realise that this is an absurd position? A sum of £4,200,000 has been lying aside ever since the last war. Licensing compensation committees sit regularly each year for the purpose of deciding how to invest this money. Nobody is benefiting from it, and can this sum not be taken by itself and dealt with at once? It is absurd that no action has been taken here when this money could be used for extremely useful purposes. Will the noble Lord be good enough to consult with the licensing trade itself on what steps should be taken so that the money can be used for proper purposes?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, it is obviously possible to deal with this particular recommendation of the Erroll Committee in isolation, but, having looked at this matter fairly carefully, and
1570
given that it has an impact on a number of other recommendations of the Erroll Committee, I find at the moment that it is difficult to see a way through.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, with the greatest respect, may I ask my noble friend what possible impact anything else in the recommendations of the Eroll Committee can have on this matter? So far as I can see, this matter is entirely separate from anything else in those recommendations, and you cannot keep £4,200,000 idle for another 30 years.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Can you not!
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, although it would be imprudent to offer any particular guarantee about the time scale for handling the recommendations of the Erroll Commit tee, I think one would indeed have to be a pessimist to say that one would not be taking action until a further 30 years had elapsed.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that an unemployed £4,000,000 is a small but useful contribution to the Government's anti-inflationary policy?
Lord JANNER: My Lords, would my noble friend consider supporting a Private Member's Bill to deal with this question?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I should not wish to give a guarantee on that particular matter, but I will certainly look into it.

KIELDER DAM REHOUSING
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 quicker action can be taken than at present appears to be contemplated to allay the anxiety of home owners in the vicinity of the Kielder Dam who are to be rehoused.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I understand that Tynedale District Council, who have statutory responsibility for rehousing householders who will be

1571
displaced by construction of the Kielder Reservoir, plan to provide replacement houses at three sites in the North Tyne Valley. All three schemes are either at, or approaching, tender stage, and it is expected that once tenders are accepted building work should soon begin.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether she is not aware that a great deal of criticism has arisen owing to the delays which appear to be caused by the Secretary of State for the Environment? And although I am grateful for what she has said, it does not in fact answermy Question. Will she ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to get on with his job and prevent the delays which he is causing, as I understand is the feeling in the North?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I can only repeat to the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, that the responsibility is that of the Tynedale District Council. It is not the responsibility of the Department. The Regional Office of the Department are not in any way involved and the schemes are entirely a matter for the District Council and the Northumbrian Water Authority.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I am very sorry about the answer of the noble Baroness. In such a big area as is covered by the Kielder Dam, does she mean to say that the Secretary of State for the Environment has nothing whatever to do with this position?—because, with very great respect, I think the noble Baroness is really wrong.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, some 30 or 40 families are affected—
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE SIDE: I know that, my Lords.
Baroness STEDMAN: —under the compensation Act 1973, and the local authority, in this case the Tynedale District Council, have the statutory duty to provide alternative accommodation, and the displacing authority, in this case the Northumbrian Water Authority, have to indemnify the local authority against any net loss incurred in providing accommodation.
1572
But it has nothing to do with the Department of the Environment. It is a matter for the district authority and the water authority.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, this matter was debated in this House a good many years ago. I wonder if my recollection is correct as to whether an assurance was not given by the then Government that the persons displaced would be rehoused.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer that, but the persons to be displaced have to be re housed by the Tynedale District Council.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, could not the Government possibly jerk the arm of the local authority in this matter, because after all, that is what Governments are for?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it is still a matter, I regret, for the Tynedale District Council, and they are making their plans. The schemes have been agreed and now they are at or approaching tender stage. Work will start very shortly.

PAROCHIAL RECORDS [H.L.]
11.23 a.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the better custody and preservation of parochial registers and records and to amend the provisions of section 5 of the Parochial Registers Act 1812. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Teviot.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to.
The Report was as follows:
ORDERED TO REPORT:

1. That the Committee have met and propose that the following Lords be named of

1573
the Select Committee to which the Hare Coursing Bill [H.L.] has been referred:—

E. Cranhrook,

V. Davidson,

Bp. Chelmsford,

L. Aylestone,

L. Collison,

L. Henley,

L. Trevelyan (Chairman).

2. That the Committee also propose the following changes in certain Sessional Committees:—

L. Goronwy-Roberts to be added to the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices in the place of L. Beswick.

L. Tranmire to be added to the Select Committee on European Communities.

L. Henley to be added to the Committee for Privileges in the place of L. Rea.

Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

OECD SUPPORT FUND BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

MONEYLENDERS (CROWN AGENTS) BILL
11.25 a.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
Bill read 3a, and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVERS' AGES AND HOURS OF WORK) BILL [H.L.]
Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
Bill read 3a.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Stedman.)
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, on behalf of this side of the House, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, on passing her first Bill as a Minister successfully through this House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CIVIL LIST BILL
11.26 a.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The Civil List Act of 1972 provided for the payment of £980,000 a year from the Consolidated Fund for the Queen's Civil List. That sum exceeded the annual expenditure at that time. The Act provided for any surpluses to be accumulated by the Royal Trustees and those surpluses were to be applied to meet deficits of subsequent years. At the time when Parliament was considering the 1972 arrangement it was expected that the provisions in the Act would suffice to cover expenditure for a period of at least five years.
My Lords, the provisions in the 1972 Act were designed at a time when experience of and expectations of inflation were much less than they have become in the intervening three years. Among those provisions was a statutory requirement on the Royal Trustees to report to the Parliament, and for any necessary action then to be taken, when it appeared that the Civil List expenditure for the next calendar year would exceed the sums available under the Act to meet that expenditure. The Civil List Act 1972 was not, however, intended to create a system of annual reviews of the Civil List payments. Indeed, the procedure that it created—the formal reports by the Royal Trustees—is in no way suitable for such a purpose, and that is the basic reason for the legislation which is now before Your Lordships.
About three-quarters of the expenditure covered by the Civil List is on wages and salaries, mainly on staff engaged in manual and clerical work. Increases which are granted to these staff reflect

1575
increases in comparable Civil Service rates negotiated with the relevant unions. Such increases are, of course, in this current period entirely in line with the Government's own counter-inflation policy. There has been no question of any breach of that policy having been made in respect of anyone whose pay depends upon the Civil List, and I can assure Your Lordships that this will continue to be the case.
My Lords, the Government are determined to deal with inflation and place the highest priority on succeeding in doing so. But it would be grossly irresponsible to expect, in considering the arrangements for the Civil List in the foreseeable future, that it will be possible to revert to a system which was based on fixing a basic sum with the expectation that it would not have to be changed for a number of years. It is therefore desirable to establish a new system as set out in the Bill now before Your Lordships.
It has always been recognised that Civil List payments were made by Parliament on behalf of the nation to the Queen and the Royal Household in order to enable the Queen and the Household, and other members of the Royal Family, to carry-out their very wide range of official duties which the nation has come to expect of them. That is why, taken together with the degree of inflation recently experienced, the Government propose that additional Civil List payments should be made in a way which is similar to that in which other monies for other official purposes are provided.
It is noteworthy that although the Queen has widened the scope of her activities far beyond those of any previous Sovereign, the number of people employed in her Household has been reduced by 44, or some 8 to 9 per cent., during her reign. This is the more remarkable since the Queen is Sovereign of 12 countries and travels regularly throughout the world in addition to carrying out extensive and exacting programmes in this country.
The Bill now before your Lordships, therefore, provides that the Treasury may make payments out of Votes for the purpose of supplementing all or any of the sums to which Section 6(1) of the Civil List Act 1972 applies. These sums,
1576
which are payable out of the Consolidated Fund, are for the Queen's Civil List, for annuities to certain members of the Royal Family, for contributions to the official expenses of certain other members of the Royal Family, and for Civil List pensions. The payments to be made to the Royal Trustees under Clause 1(1) of the present Bill will be subject to the normal supply procedure in the same way as other expenditure. Payments by the Royal Trustees will be audited by the Auditor of the Civil List, who is the Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, and a statement of those payments will be appended to the Appropriation Account at the end of the year.
The second and only other major pro vision of the Bill repeals the subsection of the 1972 Act which requires the Royal Trustees to report if at any time they think that the Civil List expenditure for the next year will exceed the sums available for meeting that expenditure. This provision, which was intended to be an exceptional provision, would, at a time of inflation, certainly become an annual requirement should the terms of the 1972 Act remain unchanged. This was not the intention of Parliament when the 1972 Act was passed. Inflation intervened and had this effect. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is undesirable that the Royal Trustees should be required to report annually. Equally, it is clearly right that they should be required to report, but at somewhat longer intervals, in order to review the working of the system generally; this was, after all, the purpose behind the 1972 Act. This Bill does not, therefore, remove the duty on the Royal Trustees to report; it says they must report at least every ten years, and they could report more often.
Your Lordships will realise that this legislation is concerned only with the machinery for providing inevitable increases in Civil List payments. It does not raise the question of the amounts which should be provided by using that machinery.
The House may recall that Her Majesty offered to contribute £150,000 towards the expenses of the Civil List for 1975. That contribution, which was warmly accepted by the Government, was in support of the Civil List for one year only, and carried with it no obligation or understanding that the Queen

1577
would continue to contribute to expenses for which Parliament provides and has traditionally provided. Her Majesty has nevertheless indicated that she now wishes to offer a regular annual contribution towards the expenses of the Civil List.
As the Prime Minister announced on 4th December 1975 in another place, Her Majesty has offered to pay to the Consolidated Fund as from next year a sum which is equivalent to the provision made, under present arrangements, under Section 3 of the Civil List Act 1972, under which payments are at present made to certain individual members of the Royal Family. Provision for these payments is now £85,000. The value of the Queen's contributions will inevitably rise year by year with the cost of living, so it is not possible to put a firm figure on it. The sum which the Queen will pay in 1976 will, of course, depend on the level of the official expenses incurred, because each of these members of the Royal Family has expenses, and the increase in the payments to be made under Section 3 of the 1972 Act. The figure currently estimated is of the order of £120,000. The first contribution was for £150,000 for that one year, 1975. We face a continuing contribution by Her Majesty of, I would say, at least£120,000, and probably considerably higher than that, for quite a few years which we can foresee. The Civil List will, on this basis, now be providing only for the Sovereign, the Consort of a Sovereign and for the children of a Sovereign and the widows of those children. I am sure that your Lordships will warmly welcome Her Majesty's offer to make this continuing contribution, which is being accepted with gratitude and appreciation by the Government.
I strongly commend this Bill to the House. It introduces no major innovations into the general arrangements by which the nation provides the financial support necessary for the Queen and the Royal Household to fulfil their official functions. Nor in itself does the Bill affect the extent of that support:no changes or additions to public expenditure arise from the Bill itself nor any changes or additions to public sector manpower. It provides for a very useful amendment to the means of providing for inevitable increases in expenditure when these increases arise in
1578
the light of changed circumstances since the original main legislation was enacted. Her Majesty's very generous offer will, I am sure, be deeply appreciated by your Lordships. But the legislation which is now before you stands and is fully justified independently of Her Majesty's willingness to make a continuing contribution towards the expenses of the Civil List. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
11.39 a.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not think this is an occasion for much Parliamentary oratory. I am grateful, and I am sure the House will be grateful, to the noble Lord for his painstaking explanation of the purposes and effect of this Bill. I note from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that:
"No change in public expenditure is expected to result from the Bill since its effect is only to transfer to Votes expenditure that would otherwise have had to be met from the Consolidated Fund by virtue of further orders under section 6 of the Act of 1972."
Further,
"The Bill does not involve any increase in public service manpower."
In those circumstances, it is clear that such a measure ought to have an easy passage in your Lordships' House.
I would add only two things which are perhaps worth saying, but not at any length. The first is that it goes almost without saying, but I should like to say simply in these words, that this side of the House, and I think all quarters of the House, will echo what the noble Lord has said about our gratitude for Her Majesty's generosity in this matter. It would be churlish not to say this explicitly, and I think foolish to say it too often. The other thing I wanted to say—and I do not want to initiate a debate on the subject—is that I think we require from time to time to reflect upon the great advantages of our own constitutional arrangements. Our Head of State is not a Party politician. In many countries where they adopt the so-called presidental system of government the Head of State is by nature a Party politician, and that means that the Head of State can never be, however much their portraits may be displayed and flaunted over the public media, quite the symbol of national unity

1579
and national continuity that a non-Party political Head of State can be.
Moreover, our Head of State is not a retired politician. Our system ensures that he, or she, as the case may be, can be somebody in the prime of life, and this means that he, or she, is able to undertake obligations and commitments of a very wide kind which other countries which adopt different systems cannot expect of the rather elderly figures, and universally respected figures, whom they select. Furthermore, our own arrangement provides a large number, or at any rate a modest number, under the Queen of other members of the family who can undertake royal functions in different parts of the country and in different parts of the Commonwealth and world.
I was glad that the noble Lord reminded us of the fact that it is not only of the United Kingdom that Her Majesty has a position as sovereign, and of course of the Commonwealth itself she has important functions as its titular head. All these things redound to the advantage and to the renown of this country at a time when this country's advantage and renown are very much to be sought. Speaking for myself. I sometimes think that in a desire not to be political about these things we all of us forget to remind ourselves from time to time of the great advantages which we derive from our present constitutional arrangements. My Lords, I support the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
11.45 a.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am glad to be able to bring before your Lordships' House a measure which proposes a most useful package of reforms in that area of the law of Scotland which relates to damages for injuries causing death. The provisions in the Bill derive directly from recommendations made by the Scottish
1580
Law Commission in their Report which was published in July 1973. That Report incorporated a draft Bill which forms the basis of the measure which is now before your Lordships. The form of the Bill as introduced differs in a number of ways from the Scottish Law Commission's original Bill but the changes are mainly of a presentational and drafting nature and have all been agreed by the Commission. I can, therefore, give a complete assurance to your Lordships that this Bill has the full backing of the Scottish Law Commission.
My Lords, I think it will be helpful if I trace briefly the history of the Bill. The Scottish Law Commission's consideration of the question of damages for injuries causing death started in 1965 when they were invited to consider the questions whether relatives should have a right to sue for solatium (that is, compensation for pain and suffering) and loss of support even when the deceased him self had initiated proceedings during his lifetime and whether the class of relatives entitled to sue for solatium and loss of support should be widened. When considering these questions, however, the Commission found that there were a number of related and wider questions which could not be omitted from con sideration if the law were to be dealt with in an orderly way. It was subsequently agreed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate that the Commission should undertake a comprehensive review of the whole question of the problems raised by actions of damages for injuries causing death. It is the fruits of this comprehensive review that come before your Lordships today in the shape of the Damages (Scotland) Bill. Before the publication of their final Report, the Scottish Law Commission sought reactions to their proposals in two memoranda they circulated for comment and criticism. The proposals in the second of these memoranda received widespread approval and the Bill is based, with minor modifications, on the scheme outlined in that memorandum. Reaction following the publication of the Scottish Law Commission's final Report has been entirely favourable.
I indicated earlier that the Bill deals with damages for injuries causing death and, in the main, that is what it does. In one respect, however, it goes rather

1581
further than that. The Scottish Law Commission found that to achieve one of their desired objectives—the avoidance of any duplication of damages in the sense that compensation for substantially the same loss should not be recoverable both by the deceased's executors and his dependants—they were obliged to consider an injured person's own claim for financial loss in respect of any reduction of his life expectancy resulting from an accident. As a result of this, the Bill contains a provision clarifying the law relating to the assessment of damages for this "lost period".
In their approach to their review, the Scottish Law Commission had a number of main objectives before them. I have already mentioned one of these, the avoidance of any duplication of damages. Among the others were the aims that compensation should be recoverable by a deceased's executors for financial loss suffered by the deceased in respect of the period up to his date of death that compensation should be recoverable by the deceased's dependants for financial loss suffered subsequent to his date of death; that compensation for loss of society and guidance should be recoverable only by the immediate relatives of a deceased: that the defender should not be exposed to the risk of a multiplicity of action; and that consistent with these principles, the system of compensation should be clear and simple and conducive to extra judicial settlement. These main objectives are all fully supported by Her Majesty's Government and have all been incorporated in the provisions of the Bill.
I come to the actual provisions in the Bill. Its broad purpose, as I have indicated, is to amend and improve existing Scots law in the field of damages for injuries causing death. All the proposals are important and together they form a comprehensive and coherent improvement in this area of the law. Perhaps, however, I should draw particular attention to certain aspects of the Bill. It sets out clearly the rights of both the dependants and the executors of a person who dies as a result of an injury and extends the class of dependants who are entitled to sue for loss of financial support to brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts and their children, to a divorced spouse and to step-children. It also provides that immediate relatives—that is, spouses, parents
1582
and children—are entitled to sue for a loss of society award which replaces, so far as it applies to those relatives, the existing award for pain and suffering, known as solatium. The loss of society award, the amount of which is to be left to the discretion of the court, is in respect of compensation for the loss of non-financial benefit which the relative might have expected to derive from the deceased's society and guidance had he not died. The rights of a deceased person to sue will transmit to his executors, but only in respect of the period up to his death and only in respect of financial loss, not solatium. The fact that a person who dies had raised an action in his lifetime which is pursued by his executors will not prevent his relatives from raising an action for financial loss. Relatives have, in fact, been prevented from doing this since 1892 following a decision of your Lordships' House in its appellate capacity, a decision which was reversed as recently as last month. Although the obstacle created by the 1892 decision has now been removed, it is proposed to retain the statutory provision recommended by the Scottish Law Commission.
As I indicated earlier, the Bill also clarifies the law on the assessment of damages where an injured person's expectation of life is diminished. Your Lord ships will be fascinated—but not, I hope relieved—to learn that the Bill also provides for the abolition of the ancient Scots common law right of assythment. This is the right by which the relatives of a person slain by a criminal act are able to obtain redress from the person responsible. The proposals in the Bill to extend the category of dependants entitled to sue effectively remove the need for any one to have recourse to the ancient remedy. Even as things stand at present, it is now virtually obsolete. There are other provisions in the Bill, but those I have referred to are, I think, are major ones and I hope that I have provided your Lordships with an adequate indication of the Bill's scope.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
11.53 a.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I apologise for not being in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, rose to speak. It is a matter of interest, if not

1583
astonishment, how quickly your Lord ships' business is conducted when the House commences at 11 a.m. I wish, first, to thank the noble Lord for the comprehensive, yet succinct, way in which he outlined the terms of the Bill. It is not, as I understand it, a contentious matter, although it is important for those who live in Scotland and it is very interesting to anybody who is interested in the development of the law, and particularly in the rights transmitted in cases of personal injury where death intervenes. Nevertheless, on a personal note I feel that I must tread warily because I am in no way qualified to pontificate on matters of Scottish law. I, too, was slightly sad to read of the abolition of the right of assythment because I understand that it had come to have a tortious connection, as well as the old right which was granted where there had been a criminal act something that was covered in the last century so far as we in England are concerned by Lord Campbell's Act, and he was a good Scot of course.
It seems that the Bill follows closely the draft which was contained in the Report of the Scottish Law Commission relating to damages for injuries causing death. It has, I understand, the support of most legal authorities in Scotland, including the Law Society of Scotland, so that any comment on the Bill must relate to the relief which is given to persons related to somebody who dies in these circumstances and, where damages may be claimed, to the classes of persons who are given such relief. Taking, first, the type of relief to be granted, Clause 2(4) has a new award called the loss of society award. The courts are to be given, by this Bill, quite deliberately, very little guidance as to how they are to set about their duties when assessing compensation under this head, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said as much, and certainly it was the intention of the Commission that little, in fact no, guidance should be given, for in paragraph 111 of the Report it is stated:
"We consider that it should be left to the courts to work out the appropriate compensation."
It will not be easy in the absence of such guidance, at least until a good number of cases have been decided, for the courts to work out the measure of
1584
damages under what is, after all, an entirely new heading. Nor will it be easy for practitioners to advise their clients what they may expect to receive because they have been deprived, as it were, of the benefits of the deceased's society and guidance, whatever that may mean; nor—and here I suppose I must declare an interest—will it be easy for insurance companies to estimate their contingent liabilities. Equally—and now I am speaking more generally—the Bill is silent on the principles behind the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1971; that is, the prospects of remarriage to be taken into account, or, rather, not to be taken into account, in the case of the possible remarriage of the widow. One wonders how far the Government consider the extension of the principle of Section 4 of that Act should apply to children of the deceased or, indeed, to widowers. There has been a great deal of comment and speculation about Section 4 and my view, for what it is worth, is that it should not be so extended.
The only other matter on which I wish to comment—it may be said that these are Committee points; I do not think they are, but I doubt whether this Bill will have a Committee stage or at any rate a very extensive one—relates to Schedule 1, to the definition of "relative." This definition has two connections, in general and those who may obtain a loss of society award. It is right, and I congratulate the Government—if that is the right word to use—on the fact that children of the family are included in Schedule 1(1)(c). That is something which has not been in the English law for very long, and it is right that it should apply in Scotland also.
There has been some comment as to whether those persons described, rather coyly, in the Report as being "unmarried spouses"—in England I suppose they are common law wives and what I would describe as mistresses—should, as it were, be entitled to damages in these circum stances. Bearing in mind the difficulties—although I think it right to say that, in England, the law is beginning to take a much more benign view of such per sons than in the past—it is probably right that they should be excluded from the provisions of Schedule 1. Equally, I suppose that it could be said that there are other extremely worthy classes of relative

1585
who might well have been included in Schedule 1. I refer, for example, to "in-laws" who may have been kept or maintained by the deceased person. One must balance right and justice and what can be done against the very considerable difficulties that would arise if the class in paragraph 1 were made too wide.
All in all, one must congratulate the Government for being quick in putting into effect the Report of the Scottish Law Commission. I have no doubt that the Bill will go expeditiously through your Lordships' House.
12.1 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to make two comments. First, I should like to congratulate those responsible on an admirably clear Report. I believe it is unusual for a complicated legal matter to be set out as clearly as has been done in this Report. I should like also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on the clarity of his own speech in which he summarised so clearly and briefly the content of the Report.
My other point is, in a way, a side issue, but this is the stage of a Bill when one is free to introduce such an issue. Where beneficiaries, if that is the right word, receive compensation for loss of support—that is, where the deceased has been contributing or is likely to contribute to the support of those concerned—that money, presumably in the form of a capital sum, is invested. It seems anomalous that where compensation is given in this form, whereas the earnings in respect of which the compensation is calculated are subject to taxation as earnings, the money, once invested, will fall to be taxed as investment income and will therefore be taxed at a higher rate. I wonder whether the noble Lord could look at that point, though clearly I do not ask for an immediate reply and it is obviously outside the scope of the Report itself. However, I suggest to the noble Lord that this is a point which is worth looking at.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for the general and generous welcome which he has given to this Government Bill. To deal with one or two of the points which he has raised, as regards assythment I feel that the only point which I should mention or
1586
re-emphasise is that the abolition was a direct recommendation—No. 27—in the Commission's Report. Of course the Government fully accept the tenor of the Report in each of its submissions.
As regards the loss of society award, the noble Earl mentioned as a possible insurance difficulty the fact that the courts have discretion to set the level of award. I should point out that the British Insurance Association has been consulted, and should also say that it is part of the Scottish court tradition that awards of this kind are left to the discretion of the court. On the other hand, there is a notional life expectancy. The lost period if, for example, the deceased were 49 would, I believe, be of about 20 years, because the notional life expectancy is about 69 years of age.
I am unable to comment about the provisions in Section 4 of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1971, but I shall certainly look into the point raised. All I can say about the definition of "relatives" in the Schedule is that the circle has to be squared at some point and that, while there are those who just fall outside the circle and those who are just included, it seems on balance to be just about right in its circumference. At least, that is the advice which I have received from the various bodies that have been consulted.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his very kind personal remarks. He has my assurance that I shall look into the, as usual, interesting point which he has raised and that I shall communicate with him.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) (No. 3) SCHEME 1975
12.8 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) (No. 3) Scheme 1975, laid before the House on 20th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to provide for payment of aid to the fishing industry for the final quarter of this year. I told the House when we debated this

1587
subject on 21st October that the Government would be laying a further order to complete the aid arrangements announced by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 29th July. Your Lordships will observe that the Order before us today covering the period October to December 1975 only, is No. 3 in calendar sequence. Perhaps it would help if I briefly describe circumstances leading up to it.
The year opened with the fleet in the grip of an adverse costs to earnings situation. Given the new pattern of costs, dominated of course by fuel, and likely changes in the future pattern of fishing, some alteration in the fleet was both inevitable and right. But the pace of change was gathering an unhealthy momentum which, if not arrested, could have led to permanent structural damage. It was decided, therefore, to give a temporary aid, for six months only, to allow the industry—and I use the term in the widest sense—time to adjust to the changed circumstances. Subsequently, it became apparent that adjustment was occurring more slowly than anticipated. The catching sector began to rationalise its operations, particularly by the removal from service of a number of old, high cost vessels. However, prices at port auctions, which really hold the key to economic and operational stability, had not recovered significantly from levels to which they had descended 12 months previously. The Government therefore decided that the circumstances justified continuation of aid.
On 29th July the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that aid would be continued until—but only until—the end of the year. But, to ensure that resources were adapted to need, bearing in mind of course the changeable nature of the industry, the level of aid was fixed initially for the July to September quarter only, leaving the final period to be settled later. The order before us is necessary to implement the arrangement announced by the Minister on 23rd October for the final quarter of the year. Noble Lords will be aware that the daily rates of aid applicable to all but the two smallest categories of vessel have been reduced.
I should like to say a few words about this. At the end of June this year,
1588
earnings for the fleet as a whole were 15 per cent. down on the corresponding period last year. This was a material factor in the decision taken at that time to continue the aid temporarily. Of course, bearing in mind the reductions which have occurred, particularly in the deep sea sector, a reduction in overall earnings might be expected. Yet during the quarter ended 30th September, earnings were 1.6 per cent. higher than the same quarter last year; this from a smaller fleet. It implies improving unit efficiency, and in that sense the industry can be seen to have used the breathing space afforded by the temporary aid to adjust operations to the changed circumstances. As there were no reasons apparent in October why this recovery should not continue, we took the view that the reduced level of aid for the final quarter was consistent with the needs of the situation and the orderly phasing out of the temporary arrangements in line with stated intentions. More recently fuel prices have been increased, adding to the industry's cost burdens. This is a factor, which is also being examined by the Government.
To return to the Order, I should say that we have also reduced the number of qualifying days from 30 and 43 for inshore and deep sea vessels to 20 and 30 respectively. This should be helpful, in view of the usual interruption to fishing caused by the weather at this time. For this final quarter we have set aside the sum of£1 million being additional to the sums of £6¼ million made avail able for the first half year and £2¼ million for the third quarter. It is misleading of course to take the final period in isolation. It is necessary to look back at what we set out to do, and balance the aid given over the year as a whole against the objective and the results achieved. Our aim has been to ensure that during a difficult time our fishing fleet is preserved in a situation where it will be ready to meet opportunities which arise.
On the marketing side we have sought to protect returns. We succeeded in persuading the Community to introduce for the first time reference prices for imports of frozen fish products, which protect the whole Community market from undercutting, by unduly low priced Third Country imports. This protection

1589
is now a permanent feature of ours and those of our Community partners' markets. It is encouraging to note prices are now showing response to market factors. Quayside prices for the main species generally began to turn upwards by mid summer and have since shown steady improvement over those ruling in the corresponding period last year. More over, fish prices are influenced by the price of other protein sources which may be expected to rise next year.
My Lords, as well as the temporary financial aid we are considering today, which benefits the sector catching about 90 per cent. of our white fish and herring, account must be taken of an extensive continuous programme of help to the fishing industry. Because these aids are of an on-going nature they sometimes tend to be taken for granted, but this should not be allowed to obscure their purpose or value. They include the provision of grants and loans for vessel construction and improvement; aid for the improvement of fishery harbours and shore based facilities; research and development, carried out directly by the Government, or by the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board, and expert scientific support for the industry.
My Lords, in conclusion, I wish to say that the Government are fully aware of the problems still facing the industry, and despite the financial problems entailed, have matched their concern with effective action. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) (No. 3) Scheme 1975, laid before the House on 20th November, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
12.15 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I see that other noble Lords wish to take part in the debate, but I think it would be convenient if I spoke at this stage. First, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for having explained the purposes of this order. I know that he takes a particular interest in the fishing industry and its prospects, although he is not in the Department. This is the third scheme this year, as the noble Lord told us, and it is to cover the last quarter. As he mentioned, less money is allocated— £1 million for the three
1590
months. But this is for the current period which, I remind your Lordships, ends in two weeks' time, and the Government have made it clear that they do not intend to renew the scheme. They are assuming—and this was confirmed by the noble Lord in his remarks—that the fortunes of the fishing industry will improve. But this depends upon world conditions: markets, prices, costs, and especially the actions of other nations, in particular Iceland on which I shall say a few words in a moment.
Our principal criticism is that there appears to be no consistent policy and these schemes have followed each other as day to day expedients. This has meant that throughout this year fishermen have faced great uncertainty because these schemes have been introduced towards the end of each period to which they referred, and during the period the fishermen did not know whether or not they were to get support. Can the Government now give us an assurance that they will provide further support if, contrary to their expectations, the fishing industry again finds itself in serious difficulties? It is subject to external factors—world conditions, as I have mentioned—not to labour disputes at home, or strikes, or industrial troubles of that kind.
The figure of £1 million for this scheme is a drop in the ocean as compared with the many millions we have been discussing in recent days in relation to other industries. This industry also provides food at reasonable prices which is needed for British housewives. I wish to summarise briefly the causes of the difficulties, as follows. First, the crisis this year followed the sharp increase in the cost of fuel oil, and this is about to go up again. Secondly, there was a substantial reduction in the American market for fish, and that caused a worldwide situation. It meant that Norway and Iceland tried to get rid of their surplus fish on the British market, thereby depressing the price of fish for British fishermen. Thirdly, the herring industry has perhaps been the worst hit of all. Herring is always a mysterious fish, and scientists find it difficult to follow its habits, but I think that the fishermen are right in believing that this situation is largely due to over-fishing by the fleets that indulge in herring fishing.

1591
The North-East Atlantic Commission's quota system has been brought in to try to control the stocks of herring, but as yet that does not appear to have been good enough to ensure stocks for the future. The Government apparently see signs of improvement, and I agree that there are indications that parts of the industry have been doing better in recent weeks. But there is no guarantee that this will last. Therefore, although we all hope that it will, and that the improvement will spread, I ask the Government to keep their minds open about again coming forward with a scheme should it be necessary.
One of the most worrying symptoms is that last September it was reported that 40 per cent. of those fishermen who had obtained loans for buying their boats were behind with their payments. That, I think, is much larger than it has ever been before, because, on the whole, fishermen are reliable and meticulous about the payments on the loans which they receive.
Now I should like to turn to conservation and the wishes of various nations to extend control over fishing beyond the present 12-mile internationally-recognised fishing limits. As your Lordships know, there is a world Conference on the Law of the Sea continuing, and virtually all the nations in the world, including the land-locked nations, are taking part again in the session which is to start in March. But there are so many subjects being considered by that conference—and rightly so, because they are related—that it is difficult for the urgent fishing matters to be settled. For example, there are navigation rights, in which this country is very much concerned; there is pollution; and, also, besides the questions of oil and gas in continental shelves, there is the question of deep-sea mining, especially beyond the continental shelves. That is perhaps the most important problem for the future, the most important matter to be settled; but as a result of this the urgent question of fishing limits and conservation schemes is being held up.
We do know, however, that there is a very large consensus, a virtual agreement, among the 130-odd nations taking part, upon a 200-mile economic zone. So we know that that is virtually agreed, but it cannot be made the subject of a treaty
1592
because of these other important subjects, which will take a time to deal with. It seems to me unlikely that the next session of the Law of the Sea Conference, beginning in March, will reach world agreement on a 200-mile economic zone, much as we should welcome that. I therefore ask the Government to look at the proposal I made in a debate this summer for the North-East Atlantic area. It would be for a regional fisheries agreement and would be based on conservation, and any new zones or limits would be consistent with the expected 200-mile economic zone, when that was later agreed on a world-wide basis. It would be an agreement covering fisheries only, and it would conform with what has already virtually been agreed but is being delayed.
The fishing industry, as I have described, has been passing through a desperately difficult time, and immediate measures are necessary to stop fish stocks being seriously depleted. This follows, I should remind the House, the period 1970 to 1973, when the inshore industry was enjoying the greatest prosperity it has ever known; and I hope the House will not consider me immodest if I mention incidentally that it was the time when I was the sponsoring Minister in Scotland. I mention that because it was also the period when it was possible to remove the operating subsidies. I cannot remember any objection or dissent from the fishing industry when the operating subsidies were removed at that time, because they were doing so well. But, of course, we, as indeed, no doubt, were Ministers on the opposite Bench, were very ready—and we made it clear that we would bring in schemes if world conditions suddenly changed that situation.
Now I come to the refusal of Iceland to renew the previous agreement or to conclude a reasonable new agreement—and this has aggravated the situation for our fishermen. The Government are right to support our trawler men in continuing to fish lawfully in the high seas, but I am sorry to say that there are some in this country who support Iceland in her claim. In particular, members of the Scottish Nationalist Party, the SNP, seeking favour with the inshore fishermen, are in fact performing a disservice to the whole British industry when they support Iceland's unilateral claim and criticise the

1593
work of the Royal Navy and the RAF in helping our vessels. Such a policy, if adopted by Britain, would rebound on Scottish boats which fish in the area and off the Faroes and off Norway. Moreover, unilateral extension of fishing limits by Iceland, if it were accepted, would force our large trawlers back to fish round our own coasts, so making fishing greatly more difficult for our inshore fleets. So it cannot be in the Scottish interest—in fact, it is against Scottish interests—and is a very parochial, misinformed view, for the SNP to be supporting the Icelandic claim to 200 miles.
Now the Icelandic Government stubbornly refuse to negotiate except on the basis of their derisory offer. To end this dispute it seems there must be mediation of some kind. The International Court has already rejected Iceland's arguments. What is needed now, I suggest, is an independent scientific assessment of the conservation measures needed in the seas round Iceland, and I would ask the Government: Have they considered a form of international mediation based on such anassessment? Both Britain and Ice land are agreed that conservation is necessary; the difference is in the amounts of fish that can be caught annually. We have a common interest in that conservation, but the area in question is the high seas. The North-East Atlantic Commission have demonstrated that agreement on conservation can be reached among nations without individual States claiming, unilaterally, rights over those high seas beyond the present accepted 12-mile fishing limit. Can the noble Lord tell us the latest situation, both where our trawlers are fishing and also on the prospects of negotiations with Iceland?
My Lords, some days ago I asked a Question on the Icelandic dispute, and in a supplementary inquired whether the British trawlers had been told by the Government to observe, within the 50-mile area, the terms of the three-year agreement which expired last November; that is to say, whether we were still working within the terms of the previous agreement. Of course, that agreement also specified named vessels and areas to be fished in at different parts of the year. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us, in so far as the vessels can fish without Icelandic interference. whether we are trying to continue within the terms of the last agreement.
1594
My Lords, we retain sanctions in this dispute. Iceland wants concessions by way of landing fish in Britain and also on import duties in exporting fish to the EEC, and I hope that the Government will stand firm as regards the concessions which Iceland is demanding in these respects until we get a reasonable agreement.
My Lords, the fishing industry realises that a new agreement will mean allowing the catching of fewer fish. I think that is accepted by the industry; but not the drastic reduction on which the Icelandic Government is now insisting. When the 200-mile economic zone is eventually adopted universally, it will require phasing out by all coastal States, not the immediate prohibition of all fishing by foreign vessels; and I am sure there will also be agreements that fishermen of other countries will be able to continue on their traditional fishing grounds, no doubt in return for advantages granted, either in fisheries or in other fields. What are the Government doing to prepare for the changes which we can see coming with the 200-mile zone? It means that the nature of the British industry is having to change. Have the Government yet formulated a policy on this? Are they pursuing the question of fishing for blue whiting and other fish which live in deeper waters and which have not previously been fished for on any scale? Are the Government having discussions with the industry on such research, and also on other changes which may be necessary?
Perhaps I could also just mention the very important matter of the EEC common fisheries policy. The present ten year agreement virtually continues the 12 mile situation that there was before this country joined the EEC. That continues until 1983. I make that point because there has been a lot of misinformed reporting in the Press that the year is 1982. In fact it runs to the beginning of 1983. The bringing in of the 200 mile economic zone completely changes the basis of that ten year agreement, and the ten year agreement was concluded knowing there would be great changes, and giving the opportunity for negotiations in the meantime. I would ask the Government how far the process of working out new arrangements or adapting the Common Fisheries Policy

1595
has reached. Although there is plenty of time, I believe the sooner that this is tackled, the better.
My last point refers to the comment which has been made by the Statutory Instruments Committee. I raise this because it has only been made within the past two or three days and since this matter was discussed in another place. The Statutory Instruments Committee is a Joint Committee of both Houses. They drew attention to this Scheme on the ground that the purport of the Scheme was not clear on one point. They said:
"It is not clear from the wording whether a period of 24 hours from, for example, noon on one day to noon on the next should be counted as one day, two days or not at all."
That throws doubt on the wording of the Scheme, and the Committee consider it unfortunate that the Ministry have followed a precedent which is ambiguous in meaning and consider the meaning should have been clarified in the present Scheme. So, apart from the purpose of this Scheme it is necessary to draw attention to this comment which has been made since discussion took place in another place. I ask the Minister whether he can comment for the Government on any action they arc going to take upon that criticism by the Statutory Instruments Committee.
12.32 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, it was my intention to intervene when my noble friend the Minister was coming to the end of his observations, but when I saw the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about to rise, naturally I yielded to him because it was appropriate that the Opposition should express some opinion on this Order, which, although it appears to be of limited provision, financially and otherwise, is of the utmost importance. I assume that the definition of "white fish" includes cod, and it occurred to me that the Minister, in submitting the scheme, might have made some reference to events on the perimeter of Iceland, but probably he thought that this was not the occasion; I can understand that. But the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has taken most of the words out of my mouth in what he said about the general position of the fishing industry. If I enter any caveat at all, it is about
1596
his remark that when he occupied a Departmental position and had some responsibility for the fishing industry he acted with good will, generosity and efficiency and so everything in the garden was lovely—if I could use a rather strange metaphor about the fishing industry.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. In fact, I simply said that I might be immodest but it was incidental that I happened to be in that situation; I made no claim to the qualities which the noble Lord suggested.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I accept every word of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said. Ever since I can remember—I will explain the reason why in a moment—there has been considerable turbulence in the fishing industry, particularly in that section of the industry which is in deep sea fishing. Why do I remember, my Lords? It is because many years ago one of my tasks—not altogether self imposed—was to seek to organise fisher men. I frequently visited Hull, Grimsby, Barry Dock, Cardiff, Fleetwood and other parts of the country associated with fishing interests, and met with some measure of success. But there were interventions of a political character and and so I departed from the fishing arena to the "fishing" that occupies one in the political field. That is my explanation.
What surprises me is that the Government have not exhibited much greater interest in the fishing industry; but in deed that applies to successive Governments. Fishing has been one of the Cinderella industries, despite the fact that we have relied for our foodstuffs very largely on the protein which the fishermen provide. For some time there have been subsidies, and they are to be retained and possibly increased. I do not think that the Government have been over-generous in this matter at all. I venture the opinion that before very long much more money will be required to keep the fishing industry alive. In-shore fishing has been subjected to great hazards and difficulties over the years. There have been frequent complaints; there have been many deputations to Parliament, to Members in another place and possibly to Members of your Lordships' House. From time to time there

1597
are still difficulties concerned with infiltration, trawling by those who have no right to intervene, and so on.
I do not think your Lordships would care for a prolonged debate on this subject on this occasion. Perhaps after Christmas it may be desirable to have a debate because of the circumstances. I will confine myself now to two points. The first is about the Law of the Sea Conference. We have read about this affair for a long time, and now it has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that they may come to an agreement about the 200-mile limit. I am trying to think of the language which would be appropriate regarding the noble Lord's observations about a 200-mile limit. I can imagine the infiltration which will take place, the illegal trawling and all the negotiations and legal arguments which will develop regarding the 200-mile limit. It is impossible to set a limit of any kind even with a 12-mile limit there have been innumerable discussions and difficulties over the years. It would happen if we had a 50-mile limit; so if we have a 200-mile limit it will be even more difficult.
I should like to come to my second point, which is about the EEC. It seems that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was not enthusiastic but generous in what he said about the EEC in this matter. When one considers that the West Germans came to an agreement with Iceland simultaneously with the United Kingdom's seeking to come to an agreement with them, but we failed and had to resort to naval action, it does not seem to me that the unity we expected from the EEC has developed as was anticipated. One might have thought that the West German Government would have sought the aid of the United Kingdom Government so that negotiations should be, though not of universal or completely EEC character, at any rate of a kind indicating that the United Kingdom was not isolated in such a matter. It makes one wonder whether there is any real unity in the EEC when it comes to a problem of this character.
I should like to congratulate—and I am sure I express the view of all Members of your Lordships' House—all those deep-sea fishermen of Grimsby, Hull, afraid. All these prices keep going up week by week. I notice that my noble
1598
reference in the Press the other day that, somewhat reluctantly, it had been agreed that captains of these trawlers might take some liquid refreshment on board with them. Hitherto this had been avoided because of possible difficulties that might be caused thereafter. When I read this passage I recalled a conversation I had many years ago with the late Captain Boon who was Commodore of the old Anchor Line. I apologised to him on one occasion when practically all the stoke-hold members of the crew—this was in the coal-burning days and there were probably about 150 men in the stokehold—were drunk; I apologised for what had happened. He said that he could never understand how anyone should go to sea sober. There is something to be said for that, and certainly it applies to the men who man the deep-sea trawlers. They need all the liquor they can lay their hands on, and I should like to express my utmost admiration to them. At the same time, I should like to express my appreciation of the Royal Navy men who have had imposed upon them the most difficult and unpleasant task of being on the verge of engaging in hostilities of a limited character with a country which is associated with us in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. What could be more unpleasant?
Perhaps on a future occasion we may be given the opportunity to discuss this at greater length, but at the moment I will confine myself to agreeing with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said. I hope that my noble friend, if not now then at some future time, on behalf of the Government will enter into more detail on the matters to which reference has been made.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, now that the Sex Discrimination Bill is on the Statute Book, perhaps I might he pardoned if I try to speak like a housewife. Because of the imminence of the lunch hour—when I expect there will be fish on the menu—I shall be very brief. In my household we live very largely on fish, and whether the shop ping is done by my wife or myself we find that the price is creeping up: mackerel one week, herring the next week, whiting the next week, and Dover sole—a very rare purchase these days, I am afraid. All these prices keep going up week by week. I notice that my noble

1599
friend in his introductory speech made some reference to prices and I gather from his remarks that we are to expect prices to rise still further. I welcome this subsidy, and indeed any aid which can be given to those heroic men, particularly those who brave the rigours of the North Sea. I do not think we can do too much for them.
I have a statistical turn of mind and from time to time I read those little passages in the business pages, where they give the landing prices for fish. One thing that strikes me is the enormous gap between the landing prices which the trawler owners obtain and the prices that we pay in the fish shops. This might not be the occasion for my noble friend to inquire into the matter, but I hope that he will remind his right honourable friend Mrs. Shirley Williams of this huge gap and ask whether she will investigate it.
12.46 p.m.
Lord HOY: My Lords, it is not my intention to detain your Lordships for more than two or three minutes. The last question raised by my noble friend has existed within the fishing industry throughout all the years I was attached to it and for long before that. No one could ever find a satisfactory explanation of the difference between the landing price and the retail price. Perhaps someone else might have another try at it, because I think that it is a matter which could have a greater effect than most people might think. Ultimately it is possible that people will be restrained from eating fish, not because they dislike it—on the contrary, they like it very much—but as prices keep going up and up obviously there comes a barrier which even those of us who are interested in the industry's welfare cannot break down.
Iceland has been mentioned. I would agree with my noble friend Lord Shinwell that this is not the time to go into a full exploration of the fishing industry. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised the matter but I think it would be much better to deal with this in a general debate rather than in the limited way we are dealing with it today. Half a dozen years ago I had the privilege of paying an official visit to Iceland and
1600
spent a week there, enjoying the hospitality, the warmth and friendship of the people. A lot of useful information was exchanged between the two Governments Obviously, it is a matter of great personal regret to me—and I am sure that every Member of Parliament, whether of this House or of another place, will share this regret—that we should find ourselves in dispute with Iceland today. I remember the first case which went to the Inter national Court at The Hague, in which judgment was given in favour of Iceland. This was accepted by Britain, although we perhaps did not like it. The trouble now arises because this dispute has gone to the Court and the Court have decided in favour of Britain, so that Iceland is Row saying: "We don't like that Court in any case". But you cannot have an International Court just to give you favourable decisions. You have to face the realities of the situation, and this is what Iceland has not done.
I do not think it does any good to the fishing industry of this country for us to try and tell them not to behave in this way—no good at all—because, after all, if every country is going to decide to alter its lines unilaterally, we are going to finish up with the world in a state of chaos that can only get worse over the years. So all the countries concerned must meet, even though that will take a little time. But I am hoping that the new conference will at least take a decision which is suitable to the fishing interests of every country in the world. When that is done, we can get rid of this dispute which I know is abhorred by the Government, as well as by every one else.
May I make another point on the Scheme? It used to be my job to introduce far too many orders, and it was always rather late in the day before subsidies were fixed under them. I do not think there is any mystery about the reason, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, will agree. One has to see what happens over a period of three months and then apportion the available cash according to the results. It is true that when results are good every Government want to get rid of some part of the subsidy which they are paying, and when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, dealt with these matters he said

1601
that as the industry had been a little more successful he would cut the subsidy. Nobody objected, because subsidies are there to be used if necessary; and if they are not necessary the subsidies arc not paid.
Apparently, on this occasion market prices, have been improving, but the industry is still going through a very difficult period and costs will keep on increasing. The industry has no control over costs and neither have the Government; let us be quite fair and honest about that. If those who supply us with oil put up the price, then either we do without it or we pay the increased price; and if we pay it industry as a whole, including the fishing industry, has to meet the new charge. But inasmuch as that is happening, we are entitled to say to the Government: "Keep this in mind and do not say that this is the end", because it may well be that as a consequence of actions around Ice land the economy of the industry will be somewhat upset and it will then be necessary for the Government to make further adjustments and further rules, plans and orders to meet the need.
I also want to pay my tribute to the men of the industry, with whom I have been associated for so long, and to add my humble word of praise to the people in the Navy who are doing a: very difficult job indeed, because no one likes quarrelling with a friend.
12.53 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, before I reply in detail, I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid to the industry by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and my noble friends Lord Shinwell and Lord Hoy. Everything they said was absolutely right and the Government are very conscious of the valuable and important work that our fishermen do under very difficult conditions. For many years between the wars, my father was a Member for Kingston upon-Hull, and I knew very well from an early age as a boy—in fact, as children we used to spend some time with the Humber pilots and we went out to sea with them—the wonderful work that the fishermen do and, as I said, the Government are very conscious of the importance of the industry.
The debate has ranged fairly wide but, of course, the problems of the industry
1602
are very much before us at the moment. I should like to say how much I appreciate the constructive approach of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and I shall do my best to answer the various questions that he raised. First, there is the question of the fishery limits which I shall deal with generally; and then there is the matter of Iceland which I shall deal with later.
The question of fishery limits cannot be fully resolved until after the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference has completed its discussions. It is simply not feasible to have temporary or local extensions of limits in the meantime, and no sector of the industry would achieve any significant protection by trawl-free zones or the like. If, however, other countries seek to extend their limits against us, the Government have stressed that the interests of United Kingdom fishermen will be safeguarded. The other question affecting our future resources is that of common access to the waters of the Community, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. Here the Government have made it clear that there must be an amendment of the existing access provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy. This is, of course, a highly complex issue and we expect to have hard and detailed discussions on the basis of the Community's proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, spoke about regional agreements and I believe he raised these earlier when a previous order came before the House. The Government's stated aim is to seek international agreement on limits through the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference which, as your Lordships know, is to meet again in New York in March. If the conference does not reach agreement, the Government recognise that steps may have to be taken to safeguard United Kingdom interests. Since so many nations fish in the waters which would become the United Kingdom's extended zone, the achievement of regional agree ments—which could be made only after discussion with all the nations concerned —would present considerable difficulties and they are not thought to be feasible. Furthermore, account would also have to be taken of the interests of other members of the Community. Fortunately, though, my Lords, there already exists a voluntary agreement for restricting

1603
catches under the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. Quotas offer the best protection for the stock, and will continue to do so no matter what limits regime is settled by the Law of the Sea Conference or by the Common Fisheries Policy.
I should like now to turn to Iceland which I believe was raised by all noble Lords. I do not wish to discuss the point in detail today for, as noble Lords will readily appreciate, the question of mediation would equally be a matter for the Icelandic Government. But my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has stressed the anxiety of the United Kingdom Government to examine any possibilities which may assist the reaching of a satisfactory conclusion to this unfortunate affair. I shall certainly ensure that what has been said is brought to my right honourable friend's attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, also asked under what agreement our fishermen are working at present. In order to maintain a good atmosphere for the possible resumption of negotiations, Her Majesty's Government asked the fishing industry to continue to abide substantially by the terms of the interim agreement after its expiry on 13th November. So far, the industry has been able to take adequate catches on these terms, but our future attitude will be governed by the need to safeguard the livelihood of the industry in carrying out its legal right to fish on the high seas, consistent of course with the requirements of conservation.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, asked an interesting question about the blue whiting. During the past few years, a number of exploratory voyages have been carried out to assess the size of stocks of blue whiting and other species. The results of these explorations have been made fully available to the industry and I am glad to say that further voyages are to take place next year, some under the auspices of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. While these fisheries are not yet being undertaken on a commercial basis, much information is being acquired in the meantime.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell mentioned how strange it was that West Germany should have reached agreement with Iceland at the same time as we failed to do so. I believe that the West Germans
1604
are interested mainly in saithe and redfish, and not so much interested in cod which forms the basis of the British fisheries in Iceland and where the size of stocks are at issue between our two Governments. My noble friend Lord Leather land asked about prices, and this subject was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Hoy. I am glad to say that the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection have been looking at this and they are expected to report in the near future.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, complained about the hand-to-mouth basis of aid. One recognises of course as a general point that uncertainty can be damaging, but to criticise these arrangements on that basis is, I would submit, to ignore the purpose and the essentially temporary nature of this aid. The criticism implies that lack of advance information about the precise amount of aid which would be given for the final quarter for this year created crucial problems of management. Valuable though this aid has been, for many it represents perhaps 3 to 4 per cent. of their earnings, and it is the view of the Government that vital management decisions would be based on other considerations. Having decided in principle that the giving of aid was right, clearly the Government had a duty to ensure as best they could that the level of aid was relevant to the changing circumstances. That is the situation at the moment, but the Government are very conscious of the problems facing the industry, and this matter is continually under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, raised the question of the Report of the Statutory Instruments Committee. I seem to have been under fire from all sides of the House including noble Lords behind me, in front of me and the Statutory Instruments Committee of your Lordships. As the House will hear from the Report of the Committee, the Joint Committee considers that ambiguity exists between the concept of "an eligible day" in Article 8 of the order and sub-paragraph (b) thereof, which provides for abatement of aid in respect of each period of 24 hours during a voyage which is spent in any port. The offending section repeats a provision precedented without previous criticism by the Joint Committee, although they were perfectly entitled to make a criticism they did not make earlier

1605
in schemes of a similar type going back to 1965.
I can assure noble Lords that application in principle of the 24-hour rule has not caused administrative or operational difficulties. The industry understands full well from consistent practice that if a voyage is broken by any continuous period of more than 24 hours in port one day's subsidy is deducted from the overall total of subsidy days otherwise attributable to the voyage as a whole. It is not my impression that the Joint Committee is arguing that the scheme is defective; more that it, and by definition its predecessors, could have been improved. If the need arises in future to prepare further schemes of this type the Committee's point will be borne fully in mind. We are well appraised of what they have said. We think that the Committee has fulfilled an important public duty in bringing this matter to the attention of this House.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I take this opportunity of saying that while some of his replies have not been as favourable as I might have hoped, I thank him for being able to reply to so many of the points raised, particularly by me. This was not a debate on fishing, but he will agree that it was a timely moment before the Recess to consider some of the very serious matters that are affecting the industry. I am grateful for his answering so many points.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. In conclusion, I should like to say that the special aid that the Government have provided over the year as a whole represented in our view an important form of assistance and has, I think, demonstrated our commitment to the maintenance of a healthy and efficient fishing industry. As I have said, the matter will be kept continually under review.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
1.8 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It has come to my notice that in the course of yesterday the
1606
Member for Argyll, Mr. MacCormick, introduced a Bill identical to this in the other place. I have not seen that Bill, nor have I seen the sponsors, but I am informed that they include sponsors from all political Parties in any way concerned with Scotland. I therefore considered whether I should be right in asking your Lordships to proceed any further with this Bill that we have in front of us. I think I am right to do so, for two reasons. One is that in the best constitutional system in the world there are sometimes slips between the cup and the lip and, secondly, I hope that if we continue to support this Bill it will give at least some measure of encouragement if necessary, to the other place to pursue their examination and approval of the Bill.
My Lords, this is the same Bill as was agreed by your Lordships last Session. It is prepared by the Scottish Law Commission. I take this opportunity of thanking the Scottish Office for allowing the Law Commission to assist me in bringing this Bill to your Lordships' House today for a Second Reading. I think in the circumstances, as the Bill has already been approved once by this House, I can be reasonably brief in dealing with the major points with which it is concerned. It has an interesting evolution, starting with Lord Walker's Minority Report in the Royal Commission on Divorce which reported in 1955. Lord Walker was a senator of the College of Justice. The next step, about ten years later, was the Committee appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose Putting Asunder is a very impressive document. The subject then went to the two Law Commissions both of which reported on divorce, in England and Scotland, it was also further examined by the Social and Moral Welfare Committee of the Church of Scotland in the years 1968 and 1969. I think that by all standards no one can say that these proposals have been rushed through or pushed on with undue speed. This Bill is not identical with any of the proposals in the Reports to which I have referred, but it seeks to put into practical form, the principles which lie behind all of these Reports.
If I may, I will start by simply referring to certain points with which I believe everyone will be in agreement. The first is that the present system is not satisfactory. In the Church of Scotland it is

1607
said that it "lends itself to insincerity and dishonesty"; it is, in fact, an accusatorial basis for divorce. I think that everyone would wish to get rid of the matrimonial offence. It is the purpose of all the Reports to which I have referred that it should be replaced by "the irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as the basis upon which divorce should proceed.
A further point that I must make quite clear is that no one wishes there to be divorce by consent. The purpose is to put these broad principles into practical form. Before doing so, I should repeat the words used by both Law Commissions to describe what is the objective:
"The objectives of a good divorce law should include (a) the support of marriages which have a chance of survival, and (b) the decent burial, with a minimum of embarrassment, humiliation and bitterness, of those which indubitably are dead".
This Bill differs in one major respect from the examination by the Church of England of "putting asunder". It does not accept the inquisitorial basis which was there suggested. A moment's reflection will show that that proposal is just not practicable. To call two spouses before any committee or inquiry to explain whether or not their marriage has broken down, and to examine the causes and circumstances, would be the most embarrassing situation to which anybody could possibly be exposed. This Bill does not, therefore, undertake what I believe is both an impossible and an undesirable course and one which is likely to inflame bitterness to the highest degree. It lays down five fact situations which can be taken not necessarily as the effect but not necessarily as the cause that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. May I mention one interesting historical fact. Four centuries ago Archbishop Cranmer put forward in a Bill proposals which are not very dissimilar from the five fact situations to which I shall refer. It is interesting that human nature has not changed all that much.
The five fact situations are, first, adultery. It may be taken that one case of adultery is not adequate to show that a marriage has irretrievably broken down. At the very lowest, it indicates that one of the parties thinks that the marriage has broken down and has brought a court action; further that the other party has
1608
shown rather less than full devotion to that marriage by his actions. Perhaps more important, are you to take one case of adultery or are you to take two cases, three cases, or one a year, or an adulterous disposition? All of these propositions are quite unrealistic.
My third point is that there is ample provision, particularly in Clause 2 to which I shall refer, for postponing the application of condonation. That is to say, there is ample opportunity for the parties to cohabit together again for periods of up to three months, and in some circumstances up to six months, to find out whether they can live together without extinguishing the evidence of "break down" by condonation. That in itself makes the single act of adultery justified in the circumstances.
The second fact situation is cruelty. This will cover generally the reasonableness of the parties being able to live together. The important point is that the proof of whether or not it is reasonable for the parties to live together is at the moment when the action takes place. It is whether in the eyes of the court it is reasonable to expect the parties to live together in future.
The third fact situation is desertion. This is very similar to the present law, except that it is for a period of two years instead of three. Again very wide latitude is given for cohabitation without bringing in the implications of condonation. The fourth fact situation is separation for two years by agreement. In this case there is an alteration from the Bill that we discussed last Session. The court can lay down by act, of sederunt, precisely how that agreement can be made. The reason why this is necessary is that in actions of "status" evidence is required to be given orally.
The fifth fact situation is five years' separation. Five years' separation can afford grounds for divorce without consent. It is very hard to demonstrate that people who have lived apart for five years continue to have a marriage which has any real meaning. It is sometimes argued that this raises acute financial problems. There is some justification for saying that any marriage in difficulties raises acute financial problems, for the simple reason that few people can afford to keep two homes going. However, these problems

1609
are essentially financial ones and I suggest that within the limits of a Divorce Bill this Bill does all that it can to rectify this position as sensibly as possible.
First, the financial arrangements do not depend upon what the parties have done, but the judge is free to make any arrangement which in the circumstances he thinks is most satisfactory. The trouble is that in many marriages there are no funds available to make an arrangement which can be regarded as wholly satisfactory. Therefore it depends to a considerable degree on the social security arrangements. This is a matter which cannot be dealt with in this Bill but which I know is being looked at, and it must, I am afraid, be left on that basis.
One point that is referred to always on these occasions is reconciliation. May I say a word about this subject because, unlike the Act in England, there is no obligation to ask clients whether or not any attempt at reconciliation has taken place. The reason is that it is thought to be useless. Reconciliation is a very difficult subject. Clause 2 makes ample provision for opportunities for reconciliation: during the hearing, after adultery, after desertion, during periods of separation. These can be taken without any danger of condonation. I myself do not think that Clause 2 can possibly go any further. Equally, I do not know whether it will work and I am quite certain that we shall never know, for the reason that when it succeeds we shall hear nothing about it.
Perhaps more important than that is marriage guidance, and a great deal is being done. Again it is not a subject upon which statistically any degree of success can necessarily be outlined. However, the Scottish Marriage Guidance Council has 15 social councils and 168 counsellors, and they had about 2,500 clients last year. The Scottish Catholic Marriage Advisory Council have 7 centres and 74 counsellors, and they gave nearly 700 interviews last year. There is also the citizens' advice bureaux which gave 17,000 interviews last year, and of these I believe about one-third dealt with matrimonial subjects. This shows that a good deal of work is being done, and from my own experience, not least in the Armed Forces, I believe that there are many people who from time to time like to discuss their
1610
marital problems with people who are wholly unconnected with them.
There are three small matters regarding which there is a change in this Bill from that which was discussed last Session. I have referred to the first already: the manner in which consent can be given after two years' separation. The second is the abolition of the oath of calumny. This follows from certain comments made by my noble and learned brother, Lord Fraser, who thought that this was quite unnecessary. This is agreed. Thirdly, it has been decided that it is no longer necessary to make in this Bill any special provision in respect of children. That matter is already fully covered by the Conjugal Rights Act 1861 and the Act of 1859, besides the normal legal rights, including legitim, which still exist.
The purpose of this Bill is not to make divorce easier but to make the forms of divorce in line with the significance of the institution of marriage. A change is wanted. I believe urgently, by the people in Scotland. It is accepted by a large number of people—the Church, the Law Society, the Commission—as being the wisest lines on which to proceed. There is also an argument that it is undesirable that the procedures for divorce in England and Scotland should be too wide apart. There was a time when people went to Scotland to get married; now they come from Scotland to England in order to get divorced and I do not think that is a very happy situation.
There is one matter which has been raised to which I should like to refer shortly, and that is whether or not the Bill is right in confining actions for divorce to the Court of Session. Some people would like to have it moved up to the sheriff court. This point was carefully examined by the late Lord Grant, whose tragic death occurred a few years ago at the time when he was Lord Justice Clerk. He was head of the Commission on the sheriff court and he examined carefully the implications of bringing divorce cases out of the Court of Session and into the sheriff court—Sections 103 to 115. He went into the argument in great detail; he had a strong Committee and they were unanimous that this should remain in the Court of Session; not least, he said, because the cost would not be materially different. I will not go into the

1611
reasons, but I can add today that there are further substantial reasons.
We are now proposing to introduce considerable changes in the law of divorce—by far the biggest changes to have taken place since the time of the Reformation. It is important that the interpretation of this Bill should be sound and uniform in its character. After all, marriage is the most important social relationship that anyone can have and it is important that its status should be maintained. I know there is a large number of undefended divorce cases but that does not mean that they are not important; particularly because undefended cases cannot be appealed. Moreover, I feel it is important that this Bill should have the minimum controversial content. The Bill affects every home in the country, and it is important that it should go forward in widely agreed form. It is not possible ever to say that the divorce law is wholly satisfactory. Divorce is seeking to repair what is broken. These are proposals which will be warmly welcomed by the people of Scotland. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
1.23 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I wish to intervene only briefly in this debate. The noble Earl has outlined with great clarity the purpose and content of his Bill. This enables me to say that the Government are in general sympathy with the principles of the Bill. The Government are, of course, aware that there is considerable pressure for reform of the divorce laws of Scotland. And that the Bill will probably be given a favourable reception by your Lordships, and this, I am sure, reflects a wide range of opinion in Scotland. But the Government also recognise that the subject of the reform of the divorce laws of Scotland raises complex social and moral questions to which there are often strongly opposing answers. While the present divorce laws may operate harshly in individual cases, who believe that any easing of the requirements for a divorce constitutes a weakening of the marriage bond. The Government therefore take the view that any account has also to be taken of the genuine doubts and objections of those
1612
proposals to reform this sensitive area of the law should be sponsored by a Private Member in the other place, as indeed is now the case, and that such a Member must endeavour to attract the support of his fellow Members there.
The Government hope, however, that your Lordships' House will indicate its sympathetic consideration for the proposals embodied in the Bill by giving it a Second Reading.
1.25 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk upon his persistence in having introduced again so early in this Session a Bill in almost the same form as the one we discussed in your Lordships' House in the summer. Therefore I can be fairly brief in my remarks upon it on this occasion. Time was not available in another place for that previous Bill and so it died, but it has been pointed out—and the noble Lord the Minister of State has just done so—that a Private Member in another place has decided to introduce a Bill which I understand is in the same terms as the Bill which we have before us. As that private Member came fourth in the ballot he will get a full day's Second Reading debate, and I was glad to see that yesterday that date was chosen as 27th February, because it is only the first six in the draw in another place who are able to get a full day's debate.
Not only does a Bill in another place have to attract a majority of those voting, but also there is the matter of those who may wish to continue speaking at 4 o'clock on the Friday and the need for there to be enough Members in favour of the Bill—at least 100—to ensure that a Division is taken on the Second Reading.. Those are the main obstacles facing the Bill in another place to which I thought I should draw your Lordships' attention, although I see some noble Lords here who are very familiar with the procedure in another place. That means it is important that this Bill in this House should continue its passage in case there is some procedural problem in another place.
There are strongly held personal views against anything which appears to make divorce easier, and indeed there are strongly held views against the concept

1613
of divorce at all. These I respect, as I am sure do all your Lordships—the views of those who are against any measure of this kind. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said for the Government, this is a subject which the Front Benches normally leave to individuals to take decisions on. My noble friend has reminded us that this Bill is based on the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations and has considerable support in Scotland. A large majority of the legal profession certainly seem to be in favour of it and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Kilbrandon and Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, supported the Bill when it had a Second Reading in the summer.
The question that has to be considered is whether a marriage is completely dead. If it is, should that be recognised as a ground for divorce? As the law now stands, there are people whose marriages have been dead for years, but because they have no wish to resort to the grounds which today in Scotland would warrant divorce often involving pain and distress for other persons, they do not go to the divorce court. This Bill retains adultery and desertion as grounds, but, as my noble friend has pointed out, the far more important (in future) ground is introduced, and that is virtually whether the marriage is dead. While the Bill would have the effect of officially terminating some marriages which are completely dead anyway, I note that most lawyers in Scotland do not regard it as a Bill which would make divorce easier in the future. Divorce is available now for married couples who are prepared to invoke the grounds now existing and to take the action which will provide the necessary evidence. The aim of the Bill, as I see it, is to rationalise the present arrangements and also to reduce the resort to shabby expedients in order to obtain divorce.
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, when he spoke on Second Reading, referred to what he described as a pilot scheme which has been operating quite successfully South of the Border in recent years. In making reference to the change in the law in England and Wales that took place some five or six years ago, I would point out that there have been anomalies and very distressing problems where the problems of dead marriages extend across the Border, and also where there is residence
1614
in both England and Scotland because the law is different in England and Scotland. This has caused a considerable amount of difficulty and distress in recent years, arising when cases of divorce affect both England and Scotland, as the laws are at present very different. I must say personally that I support the Bill, but, speaking from this Front Bench, I think I have already made it clear that this is a matter which we leave to individuals to decide upon for themselves. But we welcome the fact that there is this opportunity, provided by my noble friend, to consider this important matter, and for a decision eventually to be taken.
1.32 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support of this Bill and to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in bringing it forward once again. It is a civilised and practical Bill which is much needed in Scotland. I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl on bringing forward this Bill in parallel with that being brought forward in the other place. A two-pronged attack is essential, because in the other place procedural devices have been used to block various attempts to get the Bill through. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed out that there are still further procedural devices which can be used by individuals to block the Bill. Therefore I think the wisdom of bringing it forward in this House for its approval, and possibly as another prong in the attack, is right and proper.
It is also a proper use of your Lordships' House to bring forward a Bill such as this, and to facilitate the passing of a law which will alleviate a great deal of genuine suffering in Scotland. It will enable a large number of decent people to avoid going through a degrading form of deceit in order to escape from the deterioration of a marriage which has become what A. P. Herbert described as "Holy deadlock". This is entirely non-political, but I think I may say that I do not know of any of my colleagues in either House who does not support this excellent measure. I thank the noble Earl for bringing it forward.
1.34 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, I do not feel I can assist your Lordships beyond making one or two extremely brief observations. When this matter

1615
was before the House in the summer, the only reason I ventured to intervene was that it occurred to me—and I think I may say this to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who has introduced this measure—that it might be of some help to have the experience of the working of the English Act which was passed some time ago and in the passing of which I took some part myself.
My Lords, I intervene really to say that I am so wholly in agreement with everything that has been said this after noon that there is nothing that I can add to it. Personally speaking, I have always taken the view of the English Act—and I now take it of the Scottish Bill—that the basic situation is that there is this sacred relationship into which a grown-up man and a grown-up woman have entered. They arc no better or worse than the rest of us; they pin so much hope upon it, and expect it will produce so much happiness and witness in their afterlife. It founders; it crashes; and they have met with a personal and emotional disaster. What should be done?
I am passionately convinced that the old idea of a matrimonial offence, not so very far from the concept of a criminal offence, is a procedure which is utterly inappropriate to deal with a situation I have just ventured to describe. This relationship has foundered. Surely to goodness it should be terminated in dignity, causing as little pain as possible, subjecting parents to as little ill advertisement as possible in the eyes of children, relatives and friends—particularly children. Approaching it from that point of view, I have myself always thought that the most significant provisions of the English Act—and as they will now, I hope, become of the Scottish Act—are the provisions which enable divorce to be obtained by consent after two years' separation, and the further provision that a marriage can be put to an end without consent after five years' separation. It seems to me that that is sensible, civilised and dignified.
My Lords, if two people such as I have described, have passed through the experience which I have ventured to adumbrate, come to the conclusion, having been separated for two years so that there is really no doubt whatever left in their minds that the relationship is at
1616
an end, decide by consent to terminate it by going to court, it seems to me that that is exactly what should happen. Having said that. I can only join fervently in the hope that has already been expressed by a number of your Lord ships, that this Bill will find its way successfully onto the Statute Book.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I should just like to say a word of encouragment to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and to wish his Bill a fair wind. In 1951 I introduced a divorce law reform Bill into the House of Commons. I survived the first hazards, obtaining an overwhelming Second Reading; but it was a period of acute political blackmail, and we had to accept in the result a Royal Commission, which was so much divided in its opinion that it gave no firm leadership whatsoever. It took a very long time before others in another place ultimately obtained the reforms affecting England and Wales which are now on the Statute Book.
When I first studied the matter, I found that in some respects the law in Scotland was more progressive than that in England and Wales. It is only in more recent years that Scottish law seems to have slipped behind. Therefore, I hope that either the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, or his partner in the other place will be successful in obtaining the necessary reforms in Scotland. Divorce is never lightly entered into. Perhaps some times it creates more problems than it solves. Nevertheless, the way should be open, I believe, for recourse to the law, perhaps in the Bill which is before your Lordships today.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I, too, should like to intervene. I just want to stand up and be counted, and to say, as a Scot and one who has no intention whatsoever of recourse to this Bill, that I think it will remove the pretty shameful state of affairs and the whole of the hypocritical situation which exists. Speaking as an old court reporter, the humiliation of the device of coming into court and pleading what is manifestly, in the case of adultery, a fake, a frame-up and all the rest of it, is one of the things that I find is an indignity to the law and an indignity to human beings. I wish the noble Earl's Bill the very best of progress.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I intervene with one sentence. I divorced by first husband in 1937. If the law had been as it is today, I would have married my second husband, Hugh Gait-skell, at least three or four years earlier. The divorce proceedings at that time—and it is not so very long ago—were utterly shameful and disgraceful. I give a great welcome to the noble Earl's Bill.
1.41 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank noble Lords very warmly for the support they have given to this Bill. I appreciate Lord Kirkhill's position; he wishes to stand well on the side lines. I hope however he will at least give some gentle weight on the subject of time, if conceivably that does arise. A little help from the Government is of enormous value, without necessarily corn-miffing their souls to one side or the other of the argument.
I am so glad Lord Campbell made the point that the Bill is not intended in any way to make divorce easier. This is not the purpose. But, frankly, if people want to marry and cannot marry, then the institution of marriage becomes less respected. This really is the basis on which I should like to think we are proceeding. I am very glad Lady White was able to say something. She speaks with great advantage over the Gorell Report: it took 25 years for anything to emerge from the Gorell Report, and only 18 from her own examination of the Bill in 1951; so at least that shows we are making some kind of progress. I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Ritchie-Calder and Lord Mackie, for their support; and it is always of value to hear the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who raises the point that this slight connection between guilt in marriage and guilt in crime is really ludicrous. I hope we will get rid of it once and for all.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WINTER KEEP (SCOTLAND) (REVOCATION) SCHEME 1975
1.45 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL rose to move, That the draft Winter Keep (Scotland) (Revocation) Scheme 1975, laid before the House on 9th December, be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Winter Keep (Scotland) (Revocation) Scheme 1975, the draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on 9th December 1975, be approved. The Winter Keep (Scotland) Scheme 1975 provides for the payment in Scotland only of annual grants based on the acreage of certain specified crops grown for the winter feeding of livestock as an optional alternative to winter keep headage payments on livestock eligible for hill cattle or hill and upland sheep subsidy payments.
The need to revoke the Scheme follows from the adoption last April of the European Economic Community's Directive on less-favoured areas, the background to which was explained on Monday when your Lordships considered and approved the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations 1975, which provide for the implementation of the compensatory allowances provisions of the Directive in the United Kingdom in place of the hill cow and hill sheep subsidy payments. There is no provision for the payment of compensatory allowances on crops grown in the areas of the United Kingdom which have been approved as eligible for the purposes of the Directive. The payment of winter keep acreage grants must therefore be stopped when the Directive is implemented. To do other wise would be illegal and would set at risk the substantial contribution—amounting to about £12 million for 1976—which the United Kingdom stands to obtain from Community funds towards the cost of paying the livestock compensatory allowances. Your Lordships will note that the Revocation Scheme safeguards those winter keep acreage payments which are due in respect of 1975, but which may not yet have been paid.
Your Lordships will wish to know the effects of the Scheme for farmers who have been claiming these acreage payments. About 1,800 farmers opted to take acreage grants instead of livestock headage supplements in 1975; of those, about 1,100 carry adult stock and will be eligible for payments under the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations at the full rate, inclusive of winter keep headage grants; some farmers may find that the limitations on the payments they can receive under the Regulations is more severe than

1619
under the Winter Keep Scheme, but in the majority of cases the difference, I am assured, will be marginal. The remaining 700 have enterprises that are based mainly on the rearing of young cattle which are bought-in: they have few or no adult livestock which would qualify for compensatory allowances.
My Lords, I had hoped that I would have been able to present your Lordships with alternative proposals for providing support for these farmers but I have to say that these are not yet finalised, although under active consideration. I can assure your Lordships, however, that it is our firm intention to continue to assist these farmers for a further period, and proposals to this effect will be submitted to your Lordships early in the New Year. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Winter Keen (Scot land) (Revocation) Scheme 1975, be approved.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Kirkhill, for having explained this Scheme. As I understand it, it is made necessary because changes in our system are needed in order to fit in with the procedures of the EEC. My understanding is that overall in Scotland the effect financially will he virtually very little. The noble Lord has explained how in losing winter keep in one way farmers become eligible for payments of grants in others, and he has also told us that there are further proposals which the Government are working out, which they are not yet ready to put forward. No doubt we shall have an opportunity of seeing them and discussing them later. All I would ask the noble Lord at this point is whether I am right in thinking that the effect of this Scheme and the explanation he has given is that there is a change in the system but that overall the farming community in Scotland will find itself in much the same position and no worse off.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can confirm that the general assessment of the current situation is as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just elucidated. My advice is that the change in regulations will have in the main a marginal effect. Unquestionably, there are a number of farmers who will be
1620
somewhat disadvantaged as against the present position. but, of course, I gave an assurance that the Government are working on proposals to alleviate that difficulty. These proposals, of course, I again give the assurance, will be brought before your Lordships for your attention in the New Year.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND LOANS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

FAIR EMPLOYMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
1.50 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord AMHERST OF HACKNEY in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Declaration of commitment to, and intent to implement, principle of equality of opportunity]:
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("specifies") and insert ("agrees, after consultation with the intending declarant").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I should like to move Amendment No. 1 and speak to Amendment No. 2. which is consequential. In my opinion—and I accept that it may well be a minority opinion—the declaration in Schedule 3 as at present drafted manages to sound both pompous and melodramatic at one and the same time. Though this may be a minority opinion, I do not suppose that it is a unique one. I suggest that the danger is that many employers who are broadly in sympathy with

1621
the general aims of the Bill may refuse, or be reluctant, to sign a declaration on this account.
On a previous occasion I suggested certain modifications to the declaration itself in Schedule 3; for instance, altering the phrase "social justice" to "social harmony", thereby changing the emphasis from moral dogmatism to that of a purely pragmatic method of lowering tension. This at the time was unacceptable to the Government. I am therefore suggesting an alteration in Clause 6(3) which will empower the Agency not to dictate an alternative form to the intending declarant but, after consultation with him, or her, to permit a variation. The emphasis is changed. The word "specifies" implies dictation without consultation. My Amendments would make it clear that this would be agreement, after friendly consultation, that the declaration could be modified if any particular employer had objection to the precise wording. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I do not think that I differ in any material way from what the noble Lord is saying. We regard his Amendment as unnecessary and as putting the onus the wrong way round. We recognise that the sentiment behind the Amendment is probably to enhance the likelihood that more organisations may be encouraged to subscribe to the declaration if they can take an active part in establishing its form, but noble Lords will appreciate that an obligation to consult and to agree in every case would impose a heavy burden on the Agency. As it now stands, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an intending declarant who is concerned about the form of the declaration, which is, in any case, generally in the form recommended by the Van Straubenzee Working Party, from discussing it with the Agency; nor is there any thing in the Bill to prevent the Agency from drawing up the declaration in a form acceptable to the declarant.
The essence of a firm freely signing a declaration of agreement to something cannot be one of compulsion; it must be one of agreement, and this is a part of the whole system of making agreements to observe the guidelines laid down. But this is something quite different from passing to the person who declares in his
1622
agreement the exact form in which he should declare it. This must ultimately lie with the Agency. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any would-be declarant from getting in touch with the Agency and saying, "In my particular case I find the words a little awkward, and I should like to change this, that or the other" and discussing this fully and getting the Agency' sagreement. This is not the same thing as saying that the Agency has to agree before it can make a decision.
I do not believe that there is a major difference between us. In so far as there is, I should like the Committee to reject this Amendment because the position as it is in the Bill as it stands seems to me entirely satisfactory. It leaves the final onus where it must inevitably be; with the Agency to say whether a declaration in its particular form is, or is not, acceptable. I do not think that I can take it further than that, and I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I say just a word on this Amendment, because the noble Lord, Lord Monson, put in a good deal of work on the Bill when we were looking at it in the summer and feels that he wants to come back to this and also to another point on small businesses. I must confess, speaking from this Bench, that I have sympathy with the noble Lord. I also think that the declaration is rather pompous, but it very much follows the wording of the Van Straubenzee Report, and I think that they thought it out carefully and felt it was difficult to find another form of wording which would be both fair and reasonably accurate. I must say that the effect of this Amendment causes me considerable consternation. For the Agency to discuss in Northern Ireland individually with each organisation the wording of the declaration would be more than just an administrative inconvenience. On those grounds alone I do not think that I could support the noble Lord.
May I add two things. The noble Lord said that this refers to employers. The effect of Clause 6, it is important to remember before this Bill leaves this House, does not just affect employers; it affects organisations of employees, vocational organisations, and other organisations. I do not think that we

1623
ought to forget that. Lastly, may I put this point to the noble Lord. My own feeling, for what it is worth, is that the really important part of this important factor in this part of the Bill is not so much the wording of the declaration (I am prepared to go along with that) but the fact that once you have signed the declaration you then go on the Register, and there, for everyone to see, you either are or are not an equal opportunity employer or organisation of employees.
Lord MONSON: I am reassured by what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said in so far as he makes it clear that employers, or organisations of workers, or others, may approach the Agency on their own initiative and consult them about this, and that goes a long way towards meeting my point. I still feel that perhaps a slightly higher proportion of employers, or organisations, would sign the agreement if my Amendment were passed, but none the less I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Further attempts at conciliation recommendations]:
2.0 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 19, line 27, leave out ("directions") and insert ("recommendations").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to correct an error in the original draft. Clause 26 (6) refers to subsection (5) of the same clause, which concerns recommendations of the Agency, and thus the word "directions" in subsection (6) is inappropriate and the change to "recommendations" is required to correct this. The difference is symbolic rather than material. The word "directions" is used in Part II and the word "recommendations" is used in Part III to distinguish the powers under Parts II and III from one another. The material difference between the words is slight, if any, but for purposes of consistency "recommendations" should be used where the Amendment suggests,
1624
rather than "directions". I hope your Lordships will accept this as a necessary drafting Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Excepted employments, etc.]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 26, line 19, after ("IV") insert (",so far as they relate to discrimination on the ground of religious belief,").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the House I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 5. The question of religious and political opinion in Parts II and III of the Bill and their relevance has been discussed at great length in our various debates on this subject and I do not propose to go further into the matter at this stage. Having examined the Bill, we have found that there is a loophole for misunderstanding, and this Amendment, with Amendment No. 5, are introduced to explain it. As at present drafted, Clause 37(3) disapplies Parts III and IV of the Bill from, or in relation to, an employment or occupation where the essential nature of the job requires it to be done by a person holding a particular religious belief or a particular political opinion. Thus, as drafted the Bill would make it possible that even where the essential nature of a job requires it to be done only by a person holding a particular religious belief—for example, a sexton in a church—discrimination on political grounds would not be unlawful.
Conversely, even where the essential nature of a job requires it to be done only by a person holding a particular political opinion—for example, an agent of a political party—discrimination on religious grounds would not be unlawful. Clearly, this is too wide an exception and is anomalous. These Amendments will have the effect of limiting the possibility of discrimination on religious grounds only to cases where the essential nature of the job requires it—for example, the sexton of a church—and of limiting the possibility of discrimination on political grounds only to cases where the essential nature of the job requires it—for example,

1625
a political agent. I am sure that this was the intention when we accepted the clause. This Amendment will clear up the position and ensure that the two things cannot be confused.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am sure that this was the intention of the House and I have no intention of opposing this Amendment, which is really a drafting matter. I confess that I am still slightly at a loss to know why Part II does not extend, for example, to a clergyman but is to extend to a sexton of a church. Perhaps the noble Lord would discuss this point with me afterwards.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I should prefer to discuss it with the noble Lord afterwards.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.5 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, about which I spoke when moving Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 22, after ("nor") (",so far as they relate to discrimination on the ground of political opinion,")—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 26, line 32, leave out ("year") and insert ("three years").
The noble Lord said: In Committee and on Report of a similar Bill this summer, many noble Lords, apart from myself, expressed a certain amount of worry about the difficulty that certain aspects of this Bill might cause to the really small employers. At the time I gave some hypothetical examples and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who unfortunately is not able to be here today (although I know he would have liked to be) gave some practical examples from his wide experience. All of our Amendments were rejected as being either too complex, or unsatisfactory for other reasons. I have tried this time a simpler approach which would, in practice, delay the coming into operation of the provisions of this Bill as regards the smallest firms by an extra two years to give them more time to adjust. The Government may feel that two years is excessive;
1626
if they were to indicate that one extra year was more appropriate I should be happy to withdraw this Amendment and move a manuscript one on Report.
I do not think the provisions of this Bill will present much difficulty for the really large firms, nor will they present much more difficulty for the medium-sized firms. Nevertheless, the Bill recognises that there is a difference and allows an extra two years before the provisions affect the medium-sized firms. In my view, however, for the very small firms the difficulties will be much greater and the gulf is much wider than as between the medium and large ones; yet they have only one further year in which to accustom themselves to these provisions. I believe it would be better to allow them more scope. If three years is too much, then two years would, I think, meet the situation and provide a certain symmetry to the clause.
Lord BELSTEAD: I would not have gone as far as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in moving an Amendment—although the noble Lord has every right to do so and, of course, to do so again on Report—my view simply being that we have been through this before and we know the Government's point of view. This matter will presumably be gone through in great detail in another place and I felt that perhaps we had worked through it sufficiently. But because I have sympathy with the noble Lord, I ask this question: when the van Straubenzee Committee was deliberating, representatives of both sides of industry sat on that Committee and it is remarkable that the Report, on one of the most difficult subjects which could possibly have been examined, was a unanimous one.
Will the Agency, particularly in the initial years of the working of the Act, make itself available for consultation with, for instance, the Northern Ireland CBI, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Northern Ireland Trades Union Congress and anyone else who wants to draw attention to the working of the Act? I feel that it would be valuable if the noble Lord could give me that undertaking and, to put it more strongly than that, if the Government would draw the Agency's attention to what has been said in Parliament. If that undertaking could be given, so far as I

1627
am concerned I should be satisfied that the drafting of the Bill should remain as it stands.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I have not the slightest hesitation in giving the undertaking which the noble Lord asks for, simply because no Agency which was doing its job properly could hesitate to take advice or to consult the bodies mentioned by the noble Lord. I am quite prepared to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, when he finally appoints the Board, will draw their attention to the dialogue which we have had. This seems to me to be asking for nothing. It is what any Agency which is working seriously must inevitably do, so I am quite happy about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, knows very well what I think about this matter and I need not take too long in saying it. We take the view that either the Fair Employment Bill is something which we should turn into an Act or it is not, and that we cannot exclude 24,000 out of the 31,000 firms for very long. We have agreed to exclude for two years firms employing fewer than 25 people and for a further year firms employing fewer than 10 people. That gives three years in which to find out what sort of hardship the effect of these regulations may have on small firms. That is plenty. If we cannot find out in three years, we shall not be able to do so in five years. There is absolutely no reason, in the Government's view, for holding matters up further. That difficulties may possibly arise is made evident by the fact that we are allowing this very long time for a majority of the firms concerned in order to ensure that no injustice should arise. Frankly, however, the idea of adding another two years is absolutely unacceptable to me and I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment, or, if he does, I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Lord ALPORT: The noble Lord, when he was answering my noble friend, said that the Agencies would "take" the advice of the various bodies. I assume that he meant that it would seek their advice and, as he is giving an undertaking, perhaps it should be expressed in the clearest possible manner.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: The noble Lord is entirely correct.
Lord MONSON: Can the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, say roughly how many employees are covered by the 24,000 firms in question—that is, the firms where there is to be a delay of two or more years before the provisions of the Bill come into effect—in comparison with the 7,000 large firms? I assume that the noble Lord is here speaking of firms which have more than 25 employees. Is it not the case that the majority of workers are employed by the larger firms where the provisions of the Bill come into effect immediately?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBR1DGE: I have no figures with me, but I shall let the noble Lord have them in writing. His suggestion is, in general, correct, in that the bulk of working people in employment in Northern Ireland are with the large employers. I find that I have some figures here after all. I can tell the noble Lord that, in the June census of employment, out of 31,000 firms employing 494,000 workers, 3,700 firms employing 67,400 workers will be exempted for the first two years, and that a further 24,600 firms employing 74,600 workers will be exempted for the first three years. As a result, there will be some 140,000 workers out of just under half a million workers who will be exempted. That is a considerable figure.
Lord MONSON: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that information. The Amendment covered 70,000 workers—in other words, about 14 per cent. of the total—and it is only those who might conceivably have been affected by its provisions. I still regret that the noble Lord has not indicated that he is prepared to compromise by allowing the later substitution of two years in place of the three years in my Amendment, and I should be sorely tempted to press this to a Division had I any support from the rest of the Committee. However, as I have not, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution) Bill read 3aand passed, and sent to the Commons.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS 1975
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE rose to move, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 11th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before your Lordships' House provides for the renewal of the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act1975 for a further period of six months from 25th January 1976.
Noble Lords will recall that the Act of 1973 contains provisions for the trial of terrorist type offences, for evidence in such trials and for special powers for the Security Forces. The atmosphere of mistrust and intimidation which led the Commission headed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, to recommend the trial of scheduled offences without a jury, is still with us. We still need these courts which are widely regarded as being fair, effective and appropriate in all the circumstances. They enable the Government to pursue their policy that terrorism, in common with all other crime, should be dealt with by the rule of law, imposed impartially and fairly through the courts.
Although intimidation continues, I am glad to report that there is growing support and co-operation from the public in bringing the terrorists to justice. This can be shown by the fact that 135 people have been charged with murder so far this year, as compared with75 during the whole of last year. Since last January 451 people have been charged with firearms offences and 318 travelling gunmen have been apprehended and charged.
I do not think that I need justify to your Lordships' House the need to continue in force the provisions for evidence,
1630
such as the reversal of the onus of proof for the possession of firearms, or the powers for the Security Forces. These are in daily use, and without them the successes I have already mentioned could not have been achieved. Although most of the provisions of the 1973 Act have continued unchanged, some were amended and others added by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1975, which followed upon the Report of the Committee chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner early this year. For example, the Security Forces had clarified their powers to stop and question suspects, and were given new powers to search for and seize radio transmitters. But perhaps the major feature of the 1975 Act is the new Schedule 1 which replaced the quasi-judicial Commissioners system of detention previously enacted by order and incorporated with minor amendments in the Act of 1973. The Gardiner Committee had been critical of these procedures and the Act of 1975 replaced them with a new advisory system where the sole responsibility for making detention orders was placed with the Secretary of State.
Noble Lords will of course be aware that the last detention orders were discharged on 5th December 1975. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already explained on several occasions his reasons for releasing the remaining detainees; not least of these was the long felt resentment, particularly in the minority community, and the propaganda value of detention to Para-military organisations. While detention played an important part in dealing with organised violence, it did not end violence. From the end of June 1973 until December 1974, for example, there were never fewer than 500 persons detained, but violence continued during this period. The Government realise that some of those released from detention may return to their former ways, as do some convicted prisoners on release. The conviction rate for released prisoners in England and Wales overall is nearly 50 per cent. So far, the known reconviction rate for released detainees is vastly less than this, and long may it remain so. One cannot hold persons indefinitely, but if long periods of incarceration are necessary, they should be awarded by the courts. Of some 2,000 persons released from

1631
detention since August 1971, only just over 100 have been charged with terrorist type offences.
Although detention has ended, my right honourable friend has clearly indicated that in extreme circumstances he would not hesitate to use the powers again, and that is why we are asking that the provisions remain in force. The system proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has worked well and we seek no changes to it. If detention has to be used again, responsibility will lie clearly at the door of the terrorists.
It is our wish and our policy, however, to look to the courts and the rule of law and to a situation in which the police can once more assume their full responsibility for the maintenance of law and order. To this end, everyone in Northern Ireland must play their part in helping police to bring the terrorist to book. Already, since detention has been phased out, there have been encouraging signs of increased co-operation with the police from the community. The Army has played a magnificent role with great courage and wise restraint, and it will remain as long as the police need its support. But in the end, it is the police to whom we must look.
Finally, my Lords, we seek to renew the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974, which provides a temporary provision for the Secretary of State to give a direction for a young person to be kept on remand in prison in order that he may not escape, or to ensure his safety or the safety of others. Noble Lords will be aware that training schools and remand homes in Northern Ireland were not designed to contain young persons who are determined to escape, and on 15 occasions before the last renewal of this Act it was necessary for the Secretary of State to direct that a young person be remanded to prison. Although I am pleased to report that such a direction has not been made during the last six months, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would be premature to allow this power to elapse now.
I have already explained that we need to continue in force the emergency provisions I have mentioned. Terrorism, violence and general lawlessness are still prevalent in Northern Ireland and we are continually exploring new avenues to combat
1632
these evils. Accordingly, there are before your Lordships' House today new regulations under the Emergency Provisions Act and it might be convenient if I were to describe these now.
My Lords, the effect of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations 1975 is to require motorists and others in charge of vehicles in Northern Ireland to ensure that when they leave their vehicles unattended, the doors are locked, the windows are closed, the ignition key is removed, and the vehicles are rendered incapable of being driven. There are a number of exemptions, but the only one which affects the ordinary road user is that exempting vehicles left in locked premises, the key of which has been removed. For the purpose of the regulations a vehicle would count as unattended unless there is atleast one person of 15 years or more in attendance upon it. It will be permissible to leave the windows slightly open to allow air for a child or a pet left inside, provided they are closed sufficiently to prevent any intruders gaining entry.
The regulations will be made under the power contained in Section 24(1) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. Consequently, failure to observe their provisions will render a person liable to the penalties set out in subsection (2); that is, on summary conviction a fine not exceeding £400, or imprisonment for no longer than six months, or both.
Regrettably, the regulations will impose a further burden on motorists in Northern Ireland. Most prudent motorists already regard the few seconds spent in locking the doors, closing the windows, and removing the key as time well spent when they leave their cars unattended. But the immobilisation provision will require motorists to go further than this. In fact, most cars produced since 1972 have included as standard a device which automatically prevents the car from being driven when the ignition key is taken away, usually by locking the steering column.
Other vehicles will have to be immobilised with whatever device the owner decides is most appropriate. The acquisition of such equipment will, of course, involve those who do not possess it in some degree of expense. Any means of rendering the vehicle incapable of being

1633
driven will be acceptable, however, which means, for instance, that if a motorist wishes to achieve this end by removing a part of the engine, thereby avoiding any expense on the purchase of equipment, he will be able to do so.
Imposing as they do, a requirement on law abiding motorists, noble Lords will wish to know why the Government have felt impelled to introduce these draft regulations now. The reasons are two-fold. In the first place, the stealing of cars, which is widespread enough in Great Britain, is even more of a problem in Northern Ire land. The number of thefts there, at over 500 a month, is two or three times that in areas of Great Britain with a comparable population. This is but one aspect of the general tendency to lawlessness which exists in Northern Ireland at present; a tendency to which my right honourable friend has referred on several occasions recently, and one to which the Government's policy is directed. The regulations will make the theft of cars more difficult and hence, it is hoped, reduce crimes of this nature. A significant advantage will be to free police time from car theft inquiries for other activities of greater importance.
In addition to this general justification, however, there is a second and more particular reason why the Government consider these regulations to be necessary at the present time. This is the use to which stolen cars may be put in the furtherance of terrorist violence. Terrorists need a means of getting quickly to the scene of their intended crime, and of quickly making their getaway. They may also need a means of conveying their guns or explosives to the locality in question. The car bomb is a particularly terrifying manifestation of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Clearly the terrorist will not normally use his own vehicle because it provides a means by which he can be traced. The stolen motor car, therefore, is a prime terrorist weapon. In October alone, stolen cars were used in at least 24 serious terrorist incidents, including four murders, four attempted murders, eight bombings, four arms offences and four armed robberies.
Although these regulations will not prevent a determined terrorist from stealing a car, my right honourable friend is satisfied that it will make it appreciably more difficult and increase the probability
1634
of detection. I feel sure that the motorists of Northern Ireland will be pleased to co-operate in these arrangements in the knowledge that by taking these extra precautions when leaving their vehicle unattended they may be preventing the commission of some terrible crime. The parts of the regulations which require the locking of vehicles, the closing of windows and the removal of the ignition key will come into force a fortnight after the order has been made. So as to give vehicle-users time to make any necessary arrangements, however, a further three months will be allowed before the immobilisation provision comes into force.
My Lords, these regulations are a further step in the continuing fight against violence and lawlessness in Northern Ireland. They illustrate the Government's determination to take all measures available to them to reduce lawlessness and defeat terrorism. My recollection is that on active service in the war this was normal practice, and the position of the ordinary motorist in Northern Ireland is now approximately that of being on active service. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations 1975, laid before the House on 11th November, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
2.31 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this order. The Emergency Provisions Act 1973 and the Emergency Provisions (Amendment) Act of this year both received, in their time, considerable debate in your Lordships' House, but the fact of the matter is that at the moment we really have so many Northern Ireland orders and Bills that it is just possible to forget the exact provisions of each particular piece of legislation, and the statement which the noble Lord made in the first half of his remarks was, I thought, particularly useful. As to the statement which the noble Lord made in the second half of his remarks, on the other order dealing with the immobilisation of vehicles, may I say that I accept and support it completely.
The Emergency Provisions Act 1973 set up, the House may remember, the single-judge courts and the procedure for the

1635
detention of terrorists, and I think it is right to bear in mind that Lord Gardiner's Committee, which looked at the matter of detention again, found that the single-judge courts had been working well in Northern Ireland—and we know that increasingly terrorists are being brought before them. In his statement, Lord Donaldson gave some figures of the number of people who, charged with murder, have been brought before single-judge courts. If the noble Lord has any figures for those who have been, not only charged but also convicted of different crimes before the single-judge courts, I certainly would be interested to hear them.
My Lords, the 1975 Amendment Act strengthened the emergency powers which were given to the Security Forces for search and seizure of various types of equipment useful to terrorists, for dealing with the recruitment of terrorists and for those who manufacture explosives, and I support the renewal of those provisions. I think it is right to remember, just at the end of the year, that this was what the 1975 Act did: it strengthened the powers of the Security Forces—something which none of us would wish necessarily to do but which we all believe is right at the present time. That is another thing which this order is continuing.
But, of course, the main purpose of the 1975 Act was broadly to implement the recommendations of the Committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, concerning detention. Those new provisions would make the detention procedure an executive act with as many safeguards as possible written in to protect the position of the suspected terrorist. I was interested to hear the noble Lord say that the system proposed by Lord Gardiner has worked well. Indeed, I hoped that this would be so when we passed the 1975 Amendment Bill, but I was not aware that the system which was proposed by the noble and learned Lord's Committee and which was provided for in the Amendment Act had in fact ever been used at all by the Secretary of State, and perhaps the noble Lord could clarify that point.
My Lords, I understand the Secretary of State's reasons for his policy concerning detention. I have previously voiced the reservations, which are widely held,
1636
about the possible consequences. But let us recognise that the Secretary of State has the best information and the best advice available. Certainly I recognise that he is attempting to bring terrorism to an end and believes that this policy will contribute to that result. However, two questions, I think, arise from the Secretary of State's current policy. First, do the Government agree that the ending of detention may make it difficult to bring to justice those who organise terrorism but are very careful not to get involved actively in it? Such people are always very careful to steer clear of the law. They are also the sort of people who would be able to bring their influence to bear upon witnesses—something which the Diplock Report spoke about and which lay behind the reasons for many of the Diplock recommendations.
Secondly, do the Government for see any problems over those detainees who openly identified themselves, while they were in detention, with a proscribed organisation? I am aware that the noble Lord's right honourable friend has looked at this problem already, and I hope that Lord Donaldson may be able to give an undertaking today that if their behaviour while in detention is not evidence of membership of a proscribed organisation under the Act, now that such people have been released from detention neither they nor anyone else will be permitted to violate the sections in the Emergency Provisions Act which relate to proscribed organisations.
I welcome, particularly, if I may say so, the noble Lord's statement that the Armed Forces must continue to remain in force in Northern Ireland until normal policing can be re-established. With Christmas only a short time away, perhaps it is right for us to remember that there will be a great many soldiers in Northern Ireland who are a long way from their families and friends at Christmastime doing a difficult job to the admiration of us all—and I endorse what the noble Lord said from the Government Front Bench. The RUC, of course, has made considerable progress in crime detection recently, and in attempting to extend the influence of the police, and I think a great deal of that is due to the tireless work of the Chief Constable, Sir Jamie Flanagan. I regret that he is to retire,

1637
but I accept that his appointment was planned to extend only to the end of 1975, and I am sure that everyone who is concerned with the work of the Security Forces in Northern Ireland will welcome Sir Jamie's agreement to continue in office until his successor is appointed.
My Lords, taken together, the three Acts which this order will continue, and the previous order concerning the security of vehicles, represent provisions which normally in the United Kingdom we should have no wish to introduce, but which we are determined to support while the need for them continues.
2.39 p.m.
Lord OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lords on these Benches I should like to support the various proposals made in these orders, and also to assure the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that we support the ending of detention. It is very unfortunate it had to be imposed in the first place, but it is very good indeed that at last the Government can see their way clear to ending it and to restoring the normal processes of law—a much better thing to do. In continuation of what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said, I should also like to draw the attention of the House this Christmastime to our forces in Belfast. I am sure we all wish to send them a message of good will and of complete support of them. Nothing in these orders, I think, would in any way derogate from our complete support. The regiment to which I belonged (and still belong, in a sense), the Royal Regiment of Wales, have had several tours of duty in Belfast, the last, recently concluded, for 18 months. Through discussing it with members of the regiment and from the regimental magazine I know only too well of their various terms of service there and how difficult these tours are; especially for the battalion in Belfast where they were on constant guard. That is a real burden. I am glad that this time, unlike other times we have been there, no soldier was killed and the regiment marched out as they marched in, with their soldiers intact. That was a very good thing.
So far as the last order to which the noble Lord referred is concerned, namely, that regarding motor cars. I must say that I was rather surprised that this
1638
procedure was not established before. I cannot believe that in a case like Northern Ireland, whether Belfast or any other place, people can go around leaving their motor cars unattended and unlocked with out any method of rendering them unable to be used. This is something we all had to do in the last war when the distributor head had to be removed. I am rather surprised at the apologetic tone that the noble Lord used. I should have thought that no one in Northern Ireland would have objected to that.
There is one last point. Yesterday the Prime Minister, rightly in my view, drew the attention of the American Press to the people who are supporting this violence in Northern Ireland; in other words, those who contribute a million dollars a year to funds which, whatever they may be called, support the terrorists. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether there is to be any follow up of this. It seems a most extraordinary amount of money. As the Prime Minister asked, what would the Americans say if we from this country supported terrorists —perhaps the Black Panthers, although I am not sure that they are terrorists—in North America and if they suddenly started murdering innocent people and throwing bombs around in Detriot, Chicago, New York and other places? What are the British Government going to do to follow that protest up?
Presumably the Prime Minister's words cannot be left there. The money must come through some channels; it must be converted from dollars in the United States to whatever currency there is in Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland. This money cannot flow there on the wings of a dove; it must come through financial channels. Cannot we impose some blockage in those channels and also obtain the support and assistance of the US Government and other Governments concerned to deal with this matter? It is absurd that we should make all these provisions today when the means by which these terrorist acts are carried out seem to me to be unimpeded in any way. I hope I am wrong; and if I am, the noble Lord can put me right.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his full explanation of these orders. I wish briefly in particular

1639
to welcome as the lesser of two evils—because it is an infringement of individual freedom—that part of the regulation dealing with unattended vehicles, in view of the very lage number of serious crimes that are committed by terrorists using stolen vehicles in Northern Ireland. There is one small aspect that worries me and I hope that the noble Lord can reassure me. I think he said that among other things it would be criminal offence to leave a car window open by as little as half an inch, unless children or animals were present in the car. This seems hard on the motorists if there is repetition of the summer that we have had, with temperatures of 85 to 90 degrees. I wonder whether there could be any flexibility on this point, providing of course that the car is well secured by other methods.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I would point out to the noble Lord that you very seldom get temperatures of 85 to 90 degrees in Belfast.
2.44 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful for the general support that noble Lords have given to these two orders. Perhaps I can deal with some of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked about the number of convictions as opposed to numbers charged. This is a very important point. The figures I have are satisfactory. They correspond pretty well to the trials which went on before when we had the judge sitting with the jury. We seem to be losing nothing in the way of convictions there. The noble Lord also asked about the use of the Gardiner detention procedure. When I read the notes that were supplied to me I wondered about that. The answer is that there have been no new ICOs made since that date. There were quite a large number not yet passed out of the ICO stage into detention orders. The new procedure was used for those. So the mark was not so meaningless as the noble Lord expected.
May I say a word or two on the ending of detention. The noble Lord spoke about the difficulty of dealing with the men behind the scenes and whether dealing with them would be more difficult
1640
now that detention had ended than it had been before. The answer is, No. It has always been extremely difficult to deal with those men who organised but did not openly commit crimes for which they could be caught. This will not in any way be changed. It is difficult to prove membership of a proscribed organisation which is the only way you can get at these people. This is still open to us. I do not believe that the ending of detention will make this more difficult.
I am glad to have the opportunity of agreeing with the noble Lord in his appreciation of Sir James Flanagan's performance as chief constable. Not only do we in Government admire him, but most of us are extremely fond of him personally and know him well. The Secretary of State made quite clear in another place recently what really unattractive kinds of lies were being told in Northern Ireland about what he is supposed to have been doing. I think I need not say more in this House. My right honourable friend made it quite clear that the normal procedure was being followed and that he and the Government admired and thanked the chief constable for the outstanding work he carried out in the period. I do not think that more than that need be said.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, supported the end of detention perhaps with less hesitation than we sometimes get from the Benches opposite, and particularly in another place. We have not had this hesitation from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I am glad that the Liberal Party is fully behind this Government in this matter. I should like to echo what the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said about the troops. They do a marvellous job. It is a rough job but now it is being spread out widely enough not to be so bad as it was 18 months ago.
I join with noble Lords in wishing the troops as happy a Christmas as Northern Ireland can provide—which may not be saying very much. In regard to the point about motor cars and the rules not being made earlier, one must not forget that for a long time it has been an offence in many parts of industrial Northern Ireland to leave an unattended car. Also there are many areas where you cannot do so because barrels prevent it. So this

1641
is an improvement on an existing situation rather than something working from scratch. It is high time it was done and I am glad that noble Lords will accept it. I resent the suggestion that I was apologetic about it; I was trying to be polite, which is quite different.
The noble Lord raised the question of money from the United States. This is being dealt with at a level so far above mine that I had better not say anything about it. There is not the slightest doubt the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, a number of our high statesmen, and high ranking American statesmen, have spoken strongly about this. The difficulty is money is given for something like the Red Cross and it is then abused. I do not say it is abused by the Red Cross; but money is given for charitable organisations and the money is used for wrong purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the difficulty of defining an offence—when a window is opened a quarter of an inch or half an inch. There is a difficulty here. It is reasonable that there should be a "loophole". If you have a child or a dog in a car, it should not be necessary to insist on total closure of the windows. I do not think I can take it further than that.
My Lords, I should like formally to commend that the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations 1975 be approved. I will follow that with the Northern Ireland Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND (VARIOUS EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (CONTINUANCE) (No. 2) ORDER 1975
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the draft Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1975, laid before the House on 27th November, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.