Lords Sitting of 13 January 1976

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry
The Earl of Munster—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
The Lord Shuttleworth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

WHITE WALTHAM AIRFIELD
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so, may I declare an interest as the Honorary President of the West London Flying Club which holds the flying rights lease in this particular airfield.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that the Civil Aviation Authority in their Study of General Aviation in the South-East of England have categorised White Waltham airfield as a Group 2 airfield, and having regard to
2
the importance of providingan airfield within easy reach of central London to meet the requirements of general aviation in the London area, they will give an assurance that White Waltham airfield will continue as an airfield of sufficient acreage to remain a Group 2 airfield and to allow the safe continuation of present flying instruction and the safe operation of medium sized private and commercial aircraft flying both within this country and abroad.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, White Waltham airfield, which was formerly owned by the Ministry of Defence, is to be sold by the Property Services Agency under the normal arrangements for disposing of surplus Crown land. It is for the planning authorities and the future landowners to decide to what extent flying there should continue. I can therefore give no assurance regarding the future of the aerodrome.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that if White Waltham airfield ceased to be a Group 2 airfield with full flying control, there will be no airfield at all to the West of London capable of taking small commercial aircraft?—which would be a national disaster, if not a national disgrace.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, at the moment the Government are awaiting the final report on a Study of General Aviation in the South-East of England which,

3
as the noble Lord will know, is being pro-pared by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Standing Conference on London and the South-East Regional Planning. At this stage, before that report is forthcoming, I cannot say whether the development of White Waltham, or the loss of the airfield, would have the consequences suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, speaks of the normal arrangements for disposing of Crown land, does he include the Crichel Down procedure which involves offering this land first to the former occupiers before placing it for general sale? Is the noble Lord aware that this land consists of 400 acres of good Class 2 agricultural land, and that it would be contrary to the policy of the Government, as set out in the White Paper Food from our own Resources, if this land were to be used for any other purpose than agriculture? Is the noble Lord also aware that all the local authorities in the neighbourhood oppose its development for purposes other than agriculture?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, while I am not aware of the facts exactly as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury —in particular, I believe that the planning authority has decided that part of the land could continue to be used as an airfield, to the extent that it is now—my information certainly is that at least part of the land involved will come under the Crichel Down procedures.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, recall that arising from the Chequers meeting there was to be strong encouragement for British industry and the export trade and investment? Is he not aware that, increasingly, industrialists from this country and Western Europe use executive aircraft to conduct their business? White Waltham airfield makes a valuable contribution to efficiency and to inter-trade between Western Europe and this country. Would the Government not consider carefully whether they have an obligation to keep open this facility, thus helping British industry?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the Government will consider the question of airfields for general aviation when they receive the report being prepared which
4
will cover the whole of the South-East region of the country. I do not think it would be sensible to make decisions on one particular airfield before that report is received. The report is expected shortly. The fact that White Waltham is a Group 2 airfield has no particular significance other than that it designates the length of the runway. There are some considerable disadvantages to White Waltham; for example, the fact that there is no concrete runway and, I understand, no ILS facilities, and various other things. So "Group 2" does not have much significance in that respect.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Answer conveyed a certain sense of irresponsibility as to the consequences of his actions as a landlord? Is he aware that a landlord, whether of Aintree racecourse, of an airfield, or of anything else, has a responsibility? It is a matter in regard to which Her Majesty's Government should set a certain example.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I cannot for one moment accept that anything I have said illustrates any sort of irresponsibility. There is a conflict of interest as to the future ownership of this land. It seems to me absolutely right and proper that the Government should follow the established, laid-down procedures, and that is what I have said the Government will do.
Earl WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if we are to follow established, laid-down Government procedures, the Crichel Down procedure is rather like virginity—it is not partial? It is the Crichel Down procedure, is it not? This land was requisitioned for defence purposes and is now no longer needed for defence purposes. Has it or has it not been offered back to the original owner?
Lord MELCHETT?My Lords, it has not been offered back to the original owner because, as I understand it, the planning details are not finally settled. Not until the planning issues of a piece of land are settled can that land be disposed of by the Property Services Agency.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this supplementary question regarding this particular

5
piece of land follows a similar question that I asked the Leader of the previous Government when they were in power? Following the line put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, if the Government took it upon themselves to dispose of land which had come under their control, and had bought this land in the first place, then, prior to its being sold to the Government and the Government taking over, the owner of the land had the first option of having that land taken back if he so desired. That was the answer given by the previous Government.
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords, and I have said that that still applies to that part of the land which would normally come under the Crichel Down procedures. As I understand it, part of the land was originally sold to an aircraft company, which built an airfield on the site, and it may be that that part of the land would not fall under the Crichel Down procedures.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, would the noble Lord confirm that among other things to be considered is the effect of noise on those living in the vicinity, and the opportunity for the public locally to participate in any decision made with regard to this airfield?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I would agree that that is a matter for the planning authorities in the area.
Viscount BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I must declare an interest, because I am one of Lord Balfour's vice-presidents. I am also a director of and shareholder in West London Aero Services, which controls the flying club. Is the noble Lord aware that West London Aero Services have before the court a lease, which is due to be renewed, and will probably be renewed for a matter of 14 years? So, whether or not Critchel Down applies that lease will continue and the flying rights over the whole airfield will continue, probably for a matter of 14 years.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I was not aware that that was the position under the lease; I will take the noble Viscount's word for it.
Lord GLENDEVON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the owners of the land are perfectly willing that the
6
flying club part should remain as it is now? These questions are concerned simply with the part which the RAF requisitioned and do not want.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I understand that what is under consideration is exactly which piece of land, with which boundaries, falls under each of the two categories.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in regard to the Crichel Down disposal procedures, would the Minister confirm that the assurance given by his noble friend Lady Birk, on Thursday, 6th November 1975, at columns 1460–1, will be adhered to, that we shall see a new circular from the Ministry on this subject?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, it is only an intervention from the Front Bench that makes me rise. I think we have gone very wide of the original Question on the Order Paper. That Question concerned the continuation of a particular airfield. I think it is quite wrong that we should have gone as far as we have. Questions of such detailed character should arise on a separate Question. I therefore suggest that we move on to the next Question.

BRITISH COUNCIL AND MIDDLE EAST PROJECTS
2.47 p.m.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the value to the United Kingdom of export business generated by the British Council's tendering and consultancy work in the Middle East in 1975.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the value of the projects for which the Council has signed contracts in 1975 was £1,930,000. In some cases the Council has provided advice on the educational design aspects of projects. Most of these are still in the tendering stage and the value of export business they are likely to generate cannot yet be stated.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Could he please tell me what the cost has been

7
to public funds of commercial and consulting activities by the British Council in this area?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, my understanding is that the answer to that question is, none. These activities arc carried out on a commercial basis.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend give a breakdown of this £1,930,000 according to the different countries involved, and can he say whether Israel is also included?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, Israel is not included. The breakdown is: £900,000 to one university in Saudi Arabia, £850,000 to another university in Saudi Arabia, £180,000 to Iran. The £180,000 is a per annum figure for an indeterminate number of years. The first figure I gave is up to 31st August 1976, and the second up to 31st August 1977.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what early warning system there is for the British Council to notify British industry of opportunities to tender for them in the Middle East?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, my understanding is that the British Council has made every effort to collaborate wherever possible with private firms; and, of course, all the business generated by the British Council is of enormous benefit to this country and enormous assistance to our export drive. The noble Baroness may know that one trade association, ICETT, is currently in discussion with the British Council in an effort to see whether there is any scope for improvement in the present arrangements.

RAIL SERVICES: SCOTTISH EAST COAST
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I must declare an interest in that I live on and use this particular line.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the increasing importance of the East Coast rail link between Inverness, Inver-
8
ness, Invergordon, Wick and Thurso is appreciated, having regard to North Sea oil developments, and whether an assurance can be given that the closure of this line by British Rail will not be sanctioned without Parliamentary approval.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment fully appreciates the relevance of North Sea oil developments to the future of the Scottish East Coast rail services. All proposals for closing railway lines are subject to the procedures laid down in the Transport Acts of 1962 and 1968.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, would the Minister take this opportunity of killing once and for all the legend published in so many papers and spoken about, that in a few years' time there will be no railways North of Edinburgh and Glasgow, including this particular line?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to repeat in this House what was said in answer to a Question by my right honourable friend in another place on 16th December, when he described as "codswallop" the rumours that had been put about about massive cuts in the railway lines. I would say that this is a mass of unscientific fiction. Before anything is done a decision has to be made by Ministers. The transport policy review is currently under very urgent consideration, and we expect that the proposals will be put forward for consultation within a few weeks.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, following the noble Minister's answer about transport policy being under consideration, may I begin by declaring an interest which is that I am a Scotsman, and then may I ask whether, in the interests of promoting the unity of the United Kingdom, the Government will make sure that the maintenance costs of uneconomic lines in Scotland and elsewhere will be made public and understood so that those who advocate separatism will realise what an expensive capital undertaking they are buying?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, all the points the noble Earl made will be taken into consideration. The consultations will go very wide and include a whole range of interests, not just road and rail but the whole spectrum of consumers, environment and industry.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend be a little more explicit when she says that the Government hope to make a statement within a few weeks. Is she aware of the alarm that has been created by the recurrent rumour that lines North of Edinburgh and Glasgow will be cut out, which just confirms action that was attempted in the Beeching/Marples day when the idea of cutting the railway lines down to 4,000 track miles was prominent? Is she aware that her right honourable friend's "codswallop" reply has not convinced anybody who is really interested and in the know in connection with actions that have taken place behind the scenes? Would she take this opportunity of warning her right honourable friend once more that there is serious alarm throughout the country as a whole about the proposals which are being talked about so very much in knowledgeable circles regarding the cutting back of rail facilities?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will not expect me to confirm what he himself called rumours, which is in fact what they are. I repeat again that they are a species of unscientific fiction. The situation is exactly as I have said. The Government are undertaking a transport policy review which will take into account not only the railways but road transport and all matters of transport. This is the point we have to understand and be quite firm about. This is a very wide review. It is a long and complicated proposition. I am sure that my noble friend appreciates that we are in a state of severe economic crisis and that it is not simply a question of road versus rail. What we are also trying to do as a Government, and as a Department, is to get the priorities right between transport, housing, jobs, social services, and all the other demands on the available resources. I can assure my noble friend that when the proposals are put out there will be the fullest and full-ranging consultations before any further document is issued.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, will the noble Baroness also bear in mind in regard to this review the line North and West from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh on the West Coast? Its retention has made possible suitable transport for materials in bulk for the building now of the largest oil platform in the world at Kisshorn on Loch Carron, and other such work may continue.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, certainly that will be taken into account. I am sure that the noble Lord knows that before any action can be taken in Scotland the Secretary of State for Scotland is also involved, and I am quite sure that he is aware of this.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for a constructive answer, and anent to that answer, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that Kipling said that transport is civilisation? Is she aware that if they close down railways much more in Wales, we shall go completely wild? Would my noble friend also agree that the grim reality is that in this world, in which we are socialising losses and privatising profits, the co-ordination of transport is essential, and it needs looking into in depth, without silly questions about. "Why can't we make the railways pay"?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am soglad to see my noble friend back and returned to health. All I can say is that I agree with what he says.

OPEC MEMBERSHIP AND THE UK
2.55 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose that within three years the United Kingdom should seek membership of OPEC as suggested in the Press report of the Prime Minister's Statement to the EEC Heads of Governments who met in Rome on 2nd December.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Lovell-Davis): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no plans to seek membership of OPEC.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, which comes as some measure of relief, may I ask whether we arc to understand that he denies the Press reports of the Prime Minister's Statement?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: No, my Lords, I am doing nothing of the kind. On several occasions the Prime Minister has made light-hearted references to possible membership of OPEC. There is, of course, a serious side to the reference, in that it made the point that this country is moving into the big league of oil producers and, by the 1980s, will rank among the top OPEC oil producing nations.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply confusing the light-hearted with the serious, may I ask whether he would agree that these remarks—whether lighthearted or serious—are hypothetical, irresponsible, presumptuous and premature? Is there any reason to believe that this country would be invited to join OPEC even if we wanted to?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, it is not at all impossible. I do not agree with the first part of the noble Earl's statement. It is not impossible that we should be invited to join OPEC.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would there not be a conflict of interest between our membership of OPEC and our membership of the European Community?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, yes, indeed, there might well be.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, if and when Britain joins OPEC, will a Labour Foreign Secretary consider it his first duty to create the maximum of animosity among Britain's fellow members by demanding special status because Britain has the major consumer interest?

LAND DRAINAGE BILL [H.L.]
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to land drainage. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

HARE COURSING BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the following Lords be named of the Select Committee on the Bill, as proposed by the Committee of Selection:—

E. Cranbrook,

V. Davidson,

Bp. Chelmsford,

L. Aylestone,

L. Collison,

L. Henley,

L. Trevelyan (Chairman);

That it be an instruction to the Committee that they should report the Bill to the House not later than Thursday the 6th of May next;
That the Committee have leave to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, delivered out; and
That the Committee do meet on Thursday the 29th of January at Three o'clock.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, in accordance with the notice I have given, I rise to ask the Government whether they are happy about the legislative timetable for this Bill. Had I possessed any idea that the Government would agree to a Select Committee on this Bill, I should have spoken on the Second Reading. It seems to me that it

13
is a matter on which a great deal is already known, contrary to some of the things which were said in the debate, although the judgment as to what to do about it may be considerably more complex. I sincerely hope that the setting up of this Committee is in no way seen as a move which will delay the further consideration of this Bill in Parliament as a whole. I do not say the further progress, because I do not yet know which way I would vote. It would be a great pity if the further progress was delayed by what I believe to be a procedural tactic. Are the Government really happy about the legislative programme?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, Governments are never very happy about their legislative programme. When we discussed this Bill on Second Reading it was the view of the Government that all that needs to be known is, in fact, known. But there were other noble Lords, particularly on the Benches opposite, who felt that before this Bill was passed there should be another inquiry, the previous inquiry having been very many years ago. It was with some reluctance, not only in terms of time but also with regard to the question of precedent, that I agreed to the setting up of this Select Committee. I did so in the firm understanding with those noble Lords who wished to see a Select Committee that this was not a means of delay in the consideration by this House of the remaining stages of the Bill and it was agreed, as the noble Lord will see, that there should be an instruction. That is the instruction that the Committee shall report the Bill to the House not later than Thursday, 6th May. I have no doubt that that instruction will be complied with, and therefore I do not see any difficulty in seeing this Bill through its remaining stages in order that another place may give its own consideration to it, bearing in mind of course that another place has already passed this Bill in its present form. I should have thought, therefore, that within this Session this Bill ought to be able to go through all its proceedings in both Houses.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my concern is slightly the other way? In view of the quite astonishing level of ignorance displayed by contributors both in another place and in this House during
14
the course of the debate, may I ask my noble friend whether he is satisfied that this proposal gives sufficient time in which to provide noble Lords with the information and knowledge which they then so obviously lacked? If the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, feels that this time is not sufficient for his task, will it be open to him to come back to this House and ask for more time so that, as a result of his and his colleagues' efforts, noble Lords and Members of the other House may be properly informed when they discuss this matter next time, as they obviously were not properly informed last time?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, whether or not the House was ignorant on this matter on the last occasion I would not wish to conjecture. Of course the Committee can always come back, but I think it would be the feeling of your Lordships' House that this Committee, under the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, will be able to steer its way through this complicated and emotional subject and be able to meet this timetable. It was a date which was decided upon after consultation through the usual channels and I have complete confidence in this Committee's being able to conclude its work and to make the proper report to your Lordships' House by that date.

ESSENTIAL COMMODITY PRICES
3.3 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD rose to move, That a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the problem of instability in prices of primary essential commodities; to scrutinise proposals designed to rectify wide price movements in these commodities; and to report on the likely effectiveness of these proposals in reducing the substantial price fluctuations which have occurred in recent years. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. If this Motion is accepted we shall be setting up a Select Committee to investigate the problem of instability in the prices of primary essential commodities, to scrutinise proposals designed to rectify wide price movements in these commodities and to report on the likely effectiveness of these proposals in reducing the substantial price fluctuations which have occurred in recent years.
I have always felt that this House, with its very special wealth of knowledge and

15
experience, is well suited to undertake investigations through our Select Committee procedure. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when Leader of the House in 1971, in moving a Motion setting up the Select Committee on Sport and Leisure, hoped that it would be the first of a long line of such Select Committees. One of the difficulties has been selecting subjects. Clearly, it needs to be a subject of importance both nationally and internationally; it also should be one about which there is still a good deal of examination to be undertaken and one that, so to speak, has not been investigated or inquired into recently.
The question of commodities is one of direct importance to this country and to the developing world as a whole. I was grateful for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that this subject was worthy of consideration. I made inquiries of some of my colleagues in the Government and we all took the view that this House was eminently suitable to look into this matter. I am pleased to say that the Government will give full support if this Select Committee is set up. I hope the House will concur with my recommendation. If it does, the Committee of Selection will meet shortly to consider the names of the chairman and members of the Committee. This is an admirable subject on which the wealth of experience in this House will enable us to do a worthwhile job.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the problem of instability in prices of primary essential commodities; to scrutinise proposals designed to rectify wide price movements in these commodities; and to report on the likely effectiveness of these proposals in reducing the substantial price fluctuations which have occurred in recent years. —(Lord Shepherd.)
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to say whether this investigation will include the prices of primary commodities in world markets, or only in this country?
Lord SHEPHERD: In world markets, my Lords.
Lord SEEBOHM: My Lords, I warmly welcome this proposal. I was in the chair of a large overseas bank for
16
about 20 years and I must have talked and written more on this subject than I care to remember. There is considerable opposition—and we shall, no doubt, find more opposition—from certain vested interests which prefer to see commodity prices go up and down rather than be stable. Similarly, I always had strong opposition from economists who, while no doubt understanding the market forces and economic arguments against any form of agreement, nevertheless seemed to forget the strong political, economic and social objects in discussing this problem. I believe that there is now far too much at stake both for the producers and for consumers of raw materials to leave this issue alone and I very much hope this House will take this on board. An inter-Parliamentary group is at presnt discussing the setting up of a world commodity centre in London. I believe that this subject could also be looked at by this Committee and I hope that something will come of it. It will need Government help to find the correct place. Mr. Allen, the Chairman of the International Tin Council, has given a great deal of thought to this subject and has prepared a very good memorandum on it, which I hope will also be looked at by this Select Committee.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in welcoming the proposal which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has put forward, but may I ask Lord Shepherd not to adhere too strictly to the criteria which he enunciated when he introduced the Motion because, although it is true that international problems of this sort are of great importance and are proper for this type of Select Committe, there are many subjects in this country which this House is well qualified to consider, subjects which have no international significance at all. Thus, although we welcome following the initiative of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, one hopes that it will be extended further and particularly to certain problems in this country.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House exactly what this Committee will study? Those who have knowledge of these subjects are aware that proposals of this type have been coming forward for many years and that in only a very few cases

17
has it been found possible to have a workable stabilisation scheme. Who will produce the proposals? Will they be produced by economists at large, or perhaps by the growers of cocoa in some country, or by academic people in this country? What exactly will the Committee study?
3.10 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful for the warm welcome expressed by the noble Lord Lord Seebohm, and by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I attach great importance to the question of commodities, not only nationally but internationally; and certainly so far as this country, as an industrial country dependent on imports, is concerned, a stable commodity régime is infinitely superior to the haphazard and dangerous processes we have seen during the last few years.
To the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I would say that the way in which the Committee goes about its work is for the chairman and members to decide. There are a number of important papers on this subject and there are matters which have been brought to our attention by the Commonwealth Secretariat. All this material will be available to the Committee and I have no doubt that there will be many people of distinction who will be willing both to provide papers and to give verbal evidence. It will be for the Committee to decide how it should proceed in its work, but the Government will do what they can to see that its work is not only useful but will produce a report that will add to the public debate and to the knowledge which the Government have when they are dealing with these very difficult matters.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, is it intended to include among the commodities in question those which are greatly affected by climate—for example, agriculture—and those which may suffer as a result of drought or other phenomena? The problems which the Committee will face if this is done will be fantastic. For example, the fact that we are suffering from a shortage of potatoes is entirely due to the weather. Is it intended to exclude from the terms of reference of this Committee any of the matters over which we have no control at
18
all—namely, what the Almighty does for us?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I do not believe that anybody could object to an investigation and a Select Committee is as good a method as any of investigating this problem; but I believe that the composition of the Select Committee is perhaps more important than the instructions which are given to it because, if we are to have a Select Committee which will put on the record a purely theoretical point of view and one which does not take into account the practical problems which may arise, it could be that danger may flow from that. When there is a possibility that a body may try to regulate matters such as climate or natural phenomena which, as my noble friend has just said, cannot be regulated, that may interfere with the production of items which are essential. It is vital that we should not try to have matters too neatly tied up, so interfering with the production of items which may well be expensive on occasion but which are necessities whatever the price may be.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, should I be in order, I should like to venture a slight gloss on a remark made by my noble friend Lord Seebohm. I might remind the House that the first impersonal and systematic proposal for international regulation of prices of certain staple commodities was put forward by the Coalition Government in 1943. It was devised by economists and came to grief for political reasons.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am happy to say that I have more confidence in Members of your Lordships' House than have the noble Lord and the noble Baroness opposite. I agree that the composition of the Committee may perhaps be more important than its terms of reference. So much importance do we attach to it that the selection of members of Select Committees is not a matter which falls to me; the House has decided that it will rely on its own Committee of Selection. I have no doubt that that Committee will seek, not only in the chairman but in the members of the Select Committee, to choose Members of this House who will themselves be able to make a major contribution.

19
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, is quite right: "commodities" is a word which encompasses nearly everything which one consumes, whether it be agricultural or mineral. Clearly, if the Select Committee were to carry out an investigation into every one and into all their different by-products, it is doubtful whether I should be alive to see its report. However, I feel that it is for the chairman and members of the Committee to decide how to proceed with their work and how to identify those commodities with which they may seek to deal. However, these are matters to which I have no doubt that the chairman and the Committee will give their fullest attention, and I am sure that they will be able to produce a report which will be worthy of this House. This Select Committee, unlike that on the Hare Coursing Bill, can, I feel, rightly and properly take its time in preparing its report, so that it is a report of real substance.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House, but I took exception to my noble friend saying that the terms of reference of the Committee might be of less importance than its membership. I do not altogether go along with that assertion; and when I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who is a very good friend of mine, assert that the price of potatoes was 11p a pound not because the farmers were charging that amount but because someone on high had ordained that that should be so, I did not accept that line of argument. I believe that such matters are of great importance to the consuming public and to the housewives of this country, and I therefore feel that the terms of reference of the Select Committee are not unimportant. I believe my noble friend will agree with that and I should not like to place less priority upon them than upon the membership of the Committee. I should have a great feeling of weakness about a member of the Committee who asserted that, though the price of potatoes had risen so extremely high—and at a time when the quality was so bad—that had nothing to do with those who produced the potatoes but was the responsibility of someone from further up.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House two questions. While
20
I am pleased that the Select Committee is to be appointed to investigate the problem of the instability of prices of primary essential commodities, may I ask whether, in effect, the Select Committee will be making recommendations regarding the creation of stability in this area? Also, in view of the Lomé Convention, will the Committee be receiving representations or considering problems arising equally in the four Anglophone countries of West Africa and in the 14 Francophone countries of West Africa? Would the noble Lord not agree that, following the signing of the Lomé Convention, we should deal with these countries on an equal basis?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps I may refer the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, to the terms of reference of the Committee. He will see that all he is asking for will be included. Certainly the question of the EEC and Lomé, and any other trade arrangements, are matters which the Committee will be able to take into account. In reply to my noble friend Lord Hoy, if he will refer to the terms of reference of the Committee, he too will see that potatoes are not excluded from consideration if the Committee thinks them worthy of consideration.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, are we waiting for a complete report from the Select Committee, or are we to have interim reports? It seems to me that events are moving very fast in this area. We are to have a series of conferences which will all bear on this point and on which we ought to have some views and some insight.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House could enlighten me as to whether the Committee will be permitted and will have the finance to travel if it may feel it necessary to see matters for itself, for example, in the Copper Belt or in the corn producing areas of America? Secondly, has the noble Lord any idea how long the Committee is likely to sit?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, one thing I do know is that I am transgressing the Rules of your Lordships' House by speaking on far too many occasions, but this has tended to become a question and answer exercise, and I apologise. Whether the Committee should travel

21
overseas is a matter for the Committee, and in its discussions with the Government it can consider what assistance can be provided. I think that the Committee should report when it is clearly in a position to do so. Perhaps it could produce an interim report, but this matter is very much open to the Committee.
At the end of the day the position is that we set up a Committee and it has terms of reference, and it is for that Committee, its chairman and its members, to decide how best to proceed in carrying out the task that this House has given it. If your Lordships felt that this is a matter worthy of a debate on a Wednesday—and personally I think it would be—I should be very happy to see that time is provided for such a purpose, if the Chief Whip could be cooperative. Following upon all the interventions we have had, and with what I believe is a spirit of general good will towards this proposal, I hope your Lordships will now agree that this Motion should be agreed to.
On Quesion, Motion agreed to.

FATAL ACCIDENTS AND SUDDEN DEATHS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): 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 Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair]
Clause 1 [investigation of death and application for public inquiry]:
The Earl of LISTOWEL: Before I call Amendment No. 1, I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 7 to 15.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 which is in my name, and I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if my Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which are consequential, were discussed with this Amendment. I can immediately put the Committee at rest by indicating that this is a probing Amendment and I do not seek to eliminate discussion on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. If my noble friend Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, agree, it might be convenient if their Amendments, Nos. 2 and 3, were also discussed, because my Amendment ranges over the whole of their Amendments, too. Therefore, I propose that we have a debate, which would be concerned largely with the question of employment and occupation, on Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Unless there is any difficulty about that, I suggest that we proceed on that basis.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I would be in full agreement with that proposal.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The effect of my Amendment No. 1 would be to give the Lord Advocate very wide discretion in deciding whether or not there should be a fatal accident inquiry. We believe that it is for the Government to convince the Committee that inquiries should be mandatory for the various categories of fatal accident proposed in the Bill. We can then consider at a later stage what type of Amendment—if any—it would be suitable to make to the Bill.
I now deal with the question of fatal accidents during the course of employment or occupation. My Amendment No. 1 touches on the question of fatal accidents to a person in legal custody, but that would be better considered in detail on my Amendment No. 7. I remind those noble Lords who are familiar with the system South of the Border that in Scotland there are no inquests and no coroners. There is a different and separate system. There is an important additional matter in this Bill. It is not just a question of reforming the law in Scotland to bring it up to date. There is now no proper system governing fatal accidents on installations in the British sector of the Continental Shelf; that is to say, accidents at sea beyond territorial

23
waters and not affecting ordinary seagoing vessels, which are covered by other legislation.
I remind the Committee that, sadly, another diver died yesterday when involved in North Sea operations. So there, is a significance in this legislation and the reform suggested and the extension to the Continental Shelf, which covers most of the North Sea operations going on at present. Since 1895 it has been mandatory in Scotland that there should be a fatal accident inquiry whenever a death occurs in industrial employment, requiring both a sheriff and a jury. The Grant Committee, chaired by a senior Scottish judge, has recommended that this is no longer necessary. Since 1895 much legislation has been passed covering inquiries into industrial accidents, and a system of inspectors has been introduced. Most people interested in this subject have assumed that modernising legislation, such as this Bill, would carry out that recommendation of the Grant Committee, and that in future there would not need to be an inquiry in every single case of a fatal accident in industrial employment.
This would avoid time-wasting and overlapping. The Grant Committee proposed that it should be left to the Lord Advocate to decide whether or not a fatal inquiry was necessary. That view seemed to be confirmed in August 1973, when the Scottish Courts Administration circulated a memorandum giving its view that the requirement to hold an inquiry into every fatal industrial accident could not now be said to be necessary. It was proposed that discretion be left to the Lord Advocate to institute inquiry proceedings when necessary or appropriate. I must make it clear that I was the Minister responsible for the courts' administration at that time.
However, this Bill goes in the opposite direction. The Government are now extending the mandatory requirements to cover other forms of employment in addition to industrial employment. Why are the Government making this change of course? Is it correct that the Scottish TUC pressed for the change? If it did, I can quite understand this being taken into account and great weight being attached to it. The Scottish TUC is
24
naturally very concerned about conditions of work and safety in employment in Scotland. But we need an explanation, not only of the Government's views but also, if they were largely influenced by the views of the Scottish TUC, an explanation of the representations by the STUC. One of the principal reforms to existing legislation that would avoid unnecessary and duplicating procedures appears to have been thrown overboard, and we need to know why. I wish to draw attention to one example. Where a criminal trial has already arisen from an accident, surely it should be left to the Lord Advocate to decide whether there should be another inquiry as well under this legislation, where many of the things that are said and the matters investigated would have to be gone over again.
We ought to consider the arrangements which now exist but which did not exist in 1895. There are systems for inquiring into industrial accidents and establishing their causes under, for example, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the Factories Act 1961, the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956 and others. Indeed these measures go wider than industrial work. Are we really to contemplate inquiries under that legislation as well as an obligatory inquiry under this Bill in every case where a death has occurred? The Government must explain the reasons.
The Government themselves leaned heavily on the Grant Report in respect of other matters which arise in this Bill; for example, doing away with juries. We discussed that on Second Reading and I, for my part, agree with it. It is an important step to do away with juries, but I do not intend to oppose the Government's following of the Grant recommendation on that. The Grant Report has been much quoted by the Government in these matters; but in this case they are now proposing to take a course opposite to the Grant Committee's recommendation. In his Amendment my noble friend Lord Selkirk has put forward something very similar to my Amendment as regards paragraph (a)(ii). The Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, do not go as far as mine and he will no doubt explain what he has in mind. I have made it clear that my Amendments are probing in order to enable the Government to explain where,

25
in their opinion, mandatory inquiries are necessary.
I must also refer to a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, on Second Reading; namely, the method of obtaining views about the proposals of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, referred to the memorandum of August 1973, when the sheriffs were told that the Government intended to accept the Grant Committee's recommendation in this respect. However, they were not later notified, apparently, that a complete change of attitude on the part of the Government had taken place, and they were not given the chance to comment on that before the Bill appeared. Of course, I immediately absolve the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, from any responsibility at all for this, because he was not in office during any of this period, but I must confess that I was surprised that the Sheriffs' Association of Scotland should have been left thinking that the Government were going to reduce the number of mandatory inquiries, in accordance with the proposals for legislation which had been circulated. They ought surely to have been consulted again, or at least informed that the Government were changing their minds; and here, again, I think some explanation is needed.
In sub-paragraph (ii) my Amendment touches on the question of persons who have died when in legal custody. I suggest that this is not the moment to go into this in detail. The Government themselves have down an Amendment to alter the definition of legal custody; and I should point out that, owing to a printing error, Amendment No. 8, to subsection (4), is in my name whereas it should be in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. But, again, the purpose of my Amendment, No. 1, is to ask: is it necessary to make inquiries mandatory in all cases, including cases of legal custody?
I have made it clear that this is an opportunity that I think the Government could take to explain why they have thought it necessary to extend instead of reduce the area of mandatory inquiries. Could not the Lord Advocate be left to decide, as was suggested by the Grant Committee? It will be noted that apparently I have the greatest confidence in our Lords Advocate. I think we have been lucky. We were very lucky in the last Conservative Administration; and it
26
is my impression that all Lords Advocate, over many years, have served the community extremely well (the present one is no exception) in matters such as this. I personally have confidence that, in the many different combinations of circumstances in which fatal accidents can occur, they can take sensible decisions as to whether it is necessary in every case to have an inquiry, in addition to other inquiries which may be taking place. I beg to move.
3.36 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: At the outset I should declare an interest. The matters with which this Bill is concerned relate exclusively to the jurisdiction of the sheriff court in Scotland, and I hold the office of Sheriff Principal of the largest of the six sheriffdoms into which Scotland is divided. The second thing I should say is that yesterday I made it known to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that in the light of discussions which I had had with the Lord Advocate I would withdraw the Amendments which were down in my name. It would nevertheless appear, particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said, that we should be able to have a useful and constructive debate on the clause with which your Lordships' Committee is now concerned, because it would be my submission to your Lordships that this clause is entirely misconceived.
The Grant Committee on The Sheriff Court, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred, was set up to consider, among other things, what changes might be desirable in the function, organisation, practice and procedure of the sheriff court in Scotland to secure the more speedy, economical and satisfactory dispatch of civil and criminal business in that court.
Its conclusions numbered, in all, some 375; and with the exception of the recommendation to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has referred, all of these, with perhaps some negligible exceptions, have been accepted by successive Governments of both Conservative and Labour complexion.
It is worth noting, incidentally, that the Committee was not unanimous in all the views it expressed. There were three Notes of Dissent put in at the instance of some

27
four members of the Committee; but so far as these fatal accident inquiries are concerned the recommendation was unanimous. That was that these compulsory fatal accident inquiries under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act of 1895 should be abolished, but that the Lord Advocate should continue, as Lord Campbell has said, to have discretion to order accident inquiries under the 1906 Act. Of course, the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, would in effect adopt the recommendation of the Grant Committee. The clause as it stands, as Lord Campbell has said, not only rejects it but would widen the range of these compulsory inquiries; and the inevitable result—I do not think this would be disputed—would be significantly to increase the number of these compulsory inquiries. In the view of the Grant Committee Report and of most people with practical experience in the field, already these inquiries are unnecessary, are formal, and are largely a waste of the time, not only of the courts but of all those involved in them.
The Government's grounds and reasons (as so far declared) for refusing to accept the Grant Committee's recommendations are quite unconvincing and unimpressive. They really miss the point in the context of the Scottish legal scene, because what must be emphasised is that if the mandatory inquiries are replaced by discretionary inquiries it does not follow that the public interest in safety at work will be prejudiced. Indeed, there is room for the view that it will be more effectively and constructively protected, because, in accordance with our well-established Scottish practice, all these deaths with which the Bill is concerned will be the subject of a report to the Crown Office in Edinburgh by the procurator fiscal of the area in which the death occurs, and there, in the Crown Office, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, the Lord Advocate is of course responsible for ensuring that each of the reports of these deaths is not only just looked at by Crown counsel but is looked at in a quasi judicial way. In practice, any case which presents any difficulty is looked at by one of the Scottish Lords.
It seems to me that the Government's proposal in this clause ignores this fundamentally important feature of the Scottish
28
legal system. Their answer to the criticisms of those who want Grant implemented suggests that the Government have lost sight of this fundamental feature of the Scottish legal system; or, if they have not lost sight of it, they are unaware of it. To those of us who care about our Scottish legal system, this is just a little disturbing, for it is this special feature which should and would ensure that where there is a real public interest in having a public judicial inquiry such an inquiry will be held, and the inquiry when held would be a real inquiry and not simply formal. At present it is a fact, and this cannot be over emphasised, that the great bulk of these inquiries are formal and serve—to quote from the words of the Grant Committee Report— "no very useful purpose". You could count—I will not risk saying "on the fingers of one hand"—certainly on the fingers of two hands, the number in any one year that are more than a formality of that description, serving no useful purpose. This is a fact which is quite inescapable. This is something that has been going on in the courts in Scotland for years and which the Grant Committee said should be stopped.
There is one last point I would mention and that is that where the next-of-kin or others with an interest are anxious to have a public inquiry, then of course in the normal course of events their wishes are ascertained and taken into account in reaching a decision on whether or not such an inquiry is necessary. This would protect the public and the private interest and this would sweep away the unnecessary inquiries that no one in the know really wants. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to the views of the Scottish TUC. I find it difficult to believe that the situation in its complete context and perspective was explained to the STUC. I may be wrong about that but, in the light of what I have said about the way in which the Scottish legal system deals with these matters, I find it difficult to believe that it has been put to them. It is a body for whose views I should certainly have the greatest respect.
The continued holding of these unnecessary inquiries, as the Grant Committee called them—and I think that this is important to your Lordships—has tended to bring the whole system, the set-up of the courts in Scotland, into

29
disrepute. To hold more of these inquiries would surely only add to that tendency—and I do not say that it is more than a tendency. Moreover, there is the point —and this is my last point—which was mentioned by the Grant Report that this type of inquiry, the unnecessary type, the type where the next-of-kin are quite happy about the situation and are satisfied that there is no matter of public interest to be investigated, can be a cause of considerable distress (this is what the Grant Committee would tell you) to the next-of-kin and to the relatives of the deceased. That kind of stress is something which must be accepted where there is a necessary judicial inquiry, where the inquiry has, if you like, a purpose; but surely it should be avoided where it has no purpose at all.
That, in effect, is very much what the Grant Committee said about these inquiries which the Government propose not merely to continue but to extend. In these circumstances, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that the Government should consider very carefully whether in Clause 1 they have not made a bad mistake.
3.44 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has been able to join the discussion. He speaks with quite unusual authority having been a Lord Advocate and having been responsible for the reorganisation of the sheriff courts and is now a Sheriff Principal. He adds his words to those of the noble Lord, Lord Grant, in saying that there are a number of unnecessary inquiries. I am going to quote only one passage from Lord Grant's Report but I think it is an important one. He says that not only are these inquiries unnecessary but—I quote:
"we are not convinced that inquiries of this kind provide the relatives of the deceased with helpful information."
That means that it does not help them in any action for reformation at all. It continues:
"We are told that they can be on occasions a cause of acute distress to close relatives."
That is the point that the noble Lord has already made.
The Grant Committee was by any standards a very responsible committee. I cannot believe that, if there was any
30
danger of unfairness happening to anyone in what the noble Lord called the "work force", they could possibly have recommended that obligatory inquiries were not really necessary. What, however, I find most difficult is the terms in which obligatory inquiries have been extended. That is the point of the wording in Clause 1(1)(a). It starts off by repeating the words of the Act of 1895 and it then goes on—and I believe the intention is to include anybody who is conceivably employed or self-employed but I think it goes too far:
"…while the person who has died, being an employee, was in the course of his employment or, being an employer or self-employed person was engaged in his occupation as such".
I do not know whether it is realised how wide is that range. It means in effect that any running-down case, any car accident, any road accident, would come under this Bill. That is to say, that from the moment anybody leaves his house on his way to work if he is killed in the streets there is an automatic inquiry. I would say with the greatest respect that that is wholly unnecessary.
However, the situation is a good deal more complicated than that. Supposing that you were driving the baker's van and got killed on the road, there would he an inquiry; supposing that you killed the other man and he has golf clubs in his car and that it may be presumed that he was going to play golf, there would be no inquiry. If he were a professional golfer and that was his occupation there would be an inquiry; but supposing that he was just out to play golf for the week-end with a chum, there would be no inquiry. I think that the hazy edge there becomes quite ridiculous.
May I take this a step further? Would not the words "self-employed person…engaged in his occupation", include a housewife? Most housewives would describe themselves as self-employed when engaged in that occupation. That means that if there were any accident in the house—and there are far too many in the house; at one time, although I do not know the figures today, there were more accidents in the house than on the roads —and a housewife engaged in her employment or occupation is for any reason killed, say, by an electric shock, by falling downstairs or by falling out of bed, there would be a compulsory

31
inquiry; but there would not be one if one of the children were killed. There would not be one if the husband was killed.
Let me take the case that the noble Lord himself quoted on Second Reading. He spoke about schools, about shops, about hospitals. If a doctor is killed or (as we would say in the Navy) a sickbay attendant is killed, there would be an inquiry; but if a patient were killed there would not be an inquiry; it would be discretionary. Take the case of the schools. If a teacher were killed there would be a compulsory inquiry; if a pupil, there would not. The same situation applies in a shop if an assistant working there is killed. But, if a client comes into the shop and is killed there would not be a compulsory inquiry.
The point I am making is that this distinction is wholly unreal. It is an untenable position. I say with respect to the noble Lord that we shall have to move further on that line and go straight into the situation of a coroner's inquest which now prevails in England. I do not think this is wanted in Scotland. I always regard a coroner's inquest as something of a survival from mediaeval times. I do not know very much about coroners' inquests, but I do not think that those are wanted at the present time in Scotland. The alternative to this untenable position would be to have some element of discretion. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, said, our whole system depends upon the confidence that we have in the Lord Advocate and the whole organisation of the procurator fiscal.
By stretching the words of this clause you are undoubtedly showing lack of confidence in the capacity of the Crown Office, the Lord Advocate, and the procurator fiscal. This is wrong. If the noble Lord gets what I think he wants—as I understand it there is pressure from the Scottish TUC—he means this: if anyone is engaged in his employment or occupation and some safety regulation is broken, or may be broken, an inquiry should be obligatory. I would not differ from him and I would not find myself in opposition to that. But the broad way in which this is expressed today goes much too far and will in the end be completely untenable.
32
I doubt whether this part of the Bill is all that important. This deals really with Clause 9. The Bill is not at all political. We all have exactly the same interests in ensuring that examinations of the circumstances of death should be fairly and properly conducted. We all want that; there is no division of opinion. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, said, one should not make this a routine business. When inquiries are conducted, they should be carried out properly and should not be prejudiced in any way by making a large number of inquiries which are totally unnecessary. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will either grant a revision of the words which I have quoted or, alternatively, permit the introduction of an element of discretion.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: Will the noble Lord forgive a mere "Sassenach" for saying a word? I have in my medical life been involved in a number of postmortems and inquests, and I well understand the English system. The Scottish system, which I have been learning about today, is foreign to me. But I was astonished when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, said that one reason why these inquiries should not be conducted is that they would distress the relatives. All inquests and inquiries in this country—and post-mortems particularly—distress relatives to some degree. That is inevitable. They are anxious that their relation who has died should be buried and that that should be the end of the business. But a long time ago the law of England decreed that there should be the system which we have. We have to comfort the relatives and tell them that this is the law and proceed with the business. Surely that is only right and proper for this very important inquiry. An inquiry into the death of some individual to be denied in Scotland because it might distress the relatives seems absolutely illogical. Then the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that another reason why we should not proceed is that there have been so many omissions; that is, whereas there might be an inquiry into the death of a certain person in the family, there would not be an inquiry into the death of another. But surely that is no reason for weakening the Bill. He is suggesting that, because certain people are omitted from the Bill, none

33
should be included. I am not a lawyer but, listening to this argument, it seems to me the reasons being adduced for not going forward with the Bill have been extremely weak and completely illogical.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: As a simple lawyer, may I say that of course I am just as aware as the noble Baroness—I hope she will accept this from me—that inevitably these situations create distress. Throughout my professional life—as no doubt in that of the noble Baroness—I have been involved in situations of distress. I was not saying that this was a reason why these inquiries should not be held. I was saying the Grant Committee had drawn attention to the circumstance that a very large proportion of these peculiar Scottish inquiries was unnecessary. I have known situations where the relatives did not want inquiries and said to me afterwards, "Why on earth did you inflict this on us when it was not really necessary?"
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: May I—
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: If I may answer the noble Baroness, because she made a point about this and I should not like her to think, as she thought before, that I am stupid. I appreciate the point. I was not suggesting inquiries should not be held because they upset people. I was saying that the Grant Committee, which looked into this matter, said that these rather peculiar Scottish inquiries sometimes caused unnecessary distress. I would think that the noble Baroness would agree with me that unnecessary distress is something which should be avoided. I had thought of saying that this would be part of the compassionate argument about which we hear a great deal in politics. I stand between political Parties now, but I seem to have heard a lot about compassion. It would be good compassion to avoid unnecessary distress.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord said that it is found so often after an inquiry that the inquiry was unnecessary. We all agree with that. I suggest that probably 90 per cent. of inquiries of many kinds have been found unnecessary. But that does not invalidate the inquiry. That is precisely why an inquiry should take place; that is, to see
34
whether it was necessary or unnecessary. The fact that a great majority are unnecessary does not rule out having the inquiry.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Perhaps I may put the noble Baroness at ease by saying that all deaths are inquired into by the Lord Advocate or the procurator fiscal, no matter what happens. The question is whether it is necessary to have a public inquiry. Unless death is by natural causes, all deaths are fully inquired into, and this system has held the confidence of Scotland in the nature of those inquiries.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: It is not only a public inquiry but a public judicial inquiry. Many of these present public judicial inquiries which are unnecessary follow a variety of other inquiries which have also been held.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: I am glad to say that it was necessary to have two men against one woman on this issue!
3.59 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: May I say at the outset that of course I accept and agree that Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are associated, and that it is profitable to have a wide-ranging debate to include points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. I feel I rather more than just touched upon the substance of the Government's case at Second Reading. I felt I had clearly explained the reason for the change in Government policy. But before I come to that major point of substance, I should like to touch on one or two points as they have arisen thus far in the debate.
I should say first to the noble Lord opposite that I am unable at this time to give him a firm view of the position relating, for example, to a rig on tow outside territorial waters. That might be one example of what he had in mind. However, I undertook to look into this point and will certainly communicate with him. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, on his point anent the duplication of inquiries because I am advised that there will be no such duplication. Section 14(7) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, as amended

35
by Schedule 1 to this Bill, makes clear that where an inquiry is held under that Act no inquiry will be held under this Bill, unless the Lord Advocate directs that one should be held. I understand that inquiries under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 have replaced inquiries under the earlier safety legislation mentioned by the noble Lord. I thought I should place that on record. It is fair for me to state that the Government accept that although liaison did take place—indeed liaison with 14 bodies at one time, if one goes back to 1973—perhaps continuing liaison was not maintained because of the change of Government. That takes account of the year 1974. To that extent I think it is reasonable to say that the sheriffs principal might well have had more contact with Government.
In referring to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I can assure him that, as I understand it, the legal definition of "employee" does not include the word "housewife". On the other points that he made, I am not sufficiently skilled to reply in detail at this time but I will certainly communicate with him regarding the professional golfer and the various kinds of car accidents to which he made reference.
I now turn to what in this clause I regard as the major issue of substance between the Government's view and the points which have been raised this afternoon by some of your Lordships. Although the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, suggested that at this stage I might leave over the question of people held in custody until we discuss a later Amendment, I should like to refer now to people in custody because it has a bearing, at any rate at one point, on the matter of substance to which I wish to refer. The effect of this Amendment is to delete from the Bill all provision for mandatory inquiries, whether into deaths resulting from fatal accidents at work or into deaths of people in legal custody. This would leave in the Bill only the provision for inquiries ordered by the Lord Advocate in exercise of his discretion under Clause 1(1)(b). This Amendment is not acceptable to the Government. We consider that the provision for mandatory inquiries is an essential part of the Bill.
36
I quite agree that we can refer to this matter again later, if your Lordships wish, but as regards people in custody at present, under Section 25(2) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 an inquiry must be held into the death of any person confined in a prison, remand centre, detention centre, borstal institution or young offenders institution. It is clearly desirable that there be an automatic public inquiry into such deaths, not dependent on the exercise of discretion by a Minister, but in order that no suspicion should attach to the death and that no imputation can be made that the true facts were concealed. No suggestion has ever been made that a mandatory inquiry is unnecessary or undesirable in these circumstances. The Grant Committee, when it suggested that mandatory inquiries were unnecessary, was looking solely at inquiries into fatal industrial accidents under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895. The Committee's attention was not directed to inquiries under the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952, and the Government's view is that that Act cannot be ignored. I would add that while the provisions of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 do not apply to deaths of people in the custody of the police, there is an equally strong public interest in ensuring that such deaths are beyond suspicion. For this reason the Lord Advocate has in recent years used his discretion under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1906 to direct that public inquiries be held into all such deaths. It therefore appears appropriate also to provide for mandatory inquiries into such deaths.
As regards mandatory inquiries into deaths resulting from accidents at work, I would concede that the Grant Committee recommended that there should not be mandatory inquiries into such deaths. We now come to the point of substance and, if one may use the phrase, the disagreement between the Government and those who have spoken today. As I indicated to your Lordships on Second Reading, there have been extensive consultations about tile recommendations of the Grant Committee on fatal accident inquiries, and in particular in August 1973 a consultative paper was circulated to all interested bodies. The Scottish Trades Union Congress and also the Law

37
Society of Scotland made strong representations against the abolition of mandatory inquiries into fatal industrial accidents.
The main arguments stated by them were as follows. First, unless there is a mandatory obligation to hold an inquiry there is the risk that many cases of fatal accidents at work will not be fully investigated and that some cases where there has been a breach of safety requirements or the employers have otherwise been at fault will not come to light. There are many cases where the employers' version of the facts appears at the outset to be fully corroborated or at least not contradicted, and this would seemingly justify the cessation of inquiries at an early stage if it were not mandatory to hold an inquiry. Secondly, the public inquiry is of value to the relatives of the deceased in revealing whether they have likely grounds for a civil action against the employer. Without an inquiry it would often be very difficult to ascertain this.
Throughout further consultations the STUC persisted with their objection to the abolition of mandatory inquiries, while the Law Society—and I emphasise this—were prepared to withdraw their objection only if the Lord Advocate undertook that only in exceptional circumstances and after full investigation would a public inquiry be dispensed with. On consideration, the Government decided there was considerable weight in the arguments adduced by the STUC and the Law Society and that it would be wrong to abolish mandatory inquiries into fatal accidents at work in the face of opposition from the representatives of the interests of the employees, who are the people directly interested in such inquiries.
I would submit therefore that mandatory inquiries should be retained both into deaths of people in custody and into deaths resulting from accidents at work; and I would ask your Lordships not to accept the proposed Amendment.
4.10 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: The noble Lord has said that there should be obligatory inquiries into accidents at work. In the normal sense of the word, I would not object to that; but that is not what the Bill says. Does the noble Lord wish to include all running down accidents on
38
the road, and would it therefore depend on what the driver is doing at the time he is killed? Should those cases not be excluded from this form of inquiry? There must be a procedure, which I have no doubt is well worked out, for handling these matters—whether there is a prosecution or any other steps are taken—and that there should be a great variation according to what a man is doing at the time seems to me a trifle absurd.
I never said that housewives were employees, but I do not think the noble Lord can say with unquestioned authority that they are not self-employed persons engaged in their occupation. This is something which might well be interpreted at some time or other in a different sense. The interesting point is that the noble Lord has said that these inquiries are of value to the relatives. He admitted in his Second Reading speech that that was not the purpose of an inquiry. The purpose of an inquiry was to find the cause of death and the Grant Report, which I quoted, stated specifically that an inquiry was not of value to the relatives in an action for damages or for reparation. If the noble Lord would confine this clause to what he has stated—that is, the safety of those at work—I should not have any strong objection. It is the very wide connotation of the words in this clause to which I take exception.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am quick to say that I am not seeking to end this debate and, of course, I shall not withdraw, as I said I would, until everyone has finished speaking. But I think that the noble Lord should take very much into account what my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said. He has been viewing with a lawyer's eye the extent to which these mandatory inquiries might be stretched, particularly the question of road accidents where the persons involved are in some way engaged in their occupation or employment, because this would make the system much wider than I think any of us had considered the Government intended. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will look again at this question. The matter has been put most cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, who perhaps has more experience of these matters than any of us in your Lordships' House. It is clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said that it was the Scottish

39
Trades Union Congress who brought particular pressure to bear in this matter, and rightly so. If they felt that this was something which affected safety and conditions at work, then of course they were right to do so. But I hope that the noble Lord, or his right honourable colleague the Lord Advocate, or others, will quickly have further discussions with the STUC and others in the light of what has been said, to see whether the effect of this Bill is really what they want.
The noble Lord mentioned the Law Society and I, and no doubt others, have heard about this matter direct from the Scottish Law Society. It is clear that they withdrew their original objection and were perfectly ready for the mandatory element to be removed from industrial employment, provided that the Lord Advocate considered in every case whether or not there need be an inquiry. So I do not think that they can be regarded as a body who were objecting, in the end, to the Grant Committee's recommendation. But I hope that the noble Lord will have further discussions with the STUC, because I understand from what he has said that they are virtually the only body who feel strongly about this matter. I think that the effect has been to reverse completely the original intention and it may be that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, indicated, they have not fully understood what the effects will be.
I welcomed the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Summer skill, and I am delighted when she and others who have experience of a similar system South of the Border take part in our debates. I think that she, with her experience of having had to deal with some of the difficult and delicate questions affecting families at inquests, spoke most sincerely about the fact that this none the less has to happen in certain cases South of the Border. I would only repeat what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said that is, that what we are considering is not whether an inquiry must be held, but whether there needs to be a second inquiry which will go over all the ground which another inquiry, under some other legislation or under some other system, has already dealt with.
I now come to the point which I put, because when the Government are look-
40
ing at possible changes in this Part of the Bill I hope that they will consider whether to give the Lord Advocate, at the very least, discretion to waive a fatal accident inquiry where criminal proceedings a real ready taking place or have already taken place, and where everything that could conceivably be relevant has already been raised and gone into, because there seems to be a most unnecessary and possibly damaging duplication in that. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will be able to give us some indication, before we end this debate, that the Government will look at this again and will also have discussions with the STUC.
Lord BALERNO: May I just make one very small and minor point? Other arguments have been so well put that I do not propose to go over them again, but I would draw attention to the rather naive approach of the Government to the financial effect of the Bill. The Government say that:
"The financial effects of any increase in the number of inquiries held resulting from the terms of the Bill should be completely offset by the saving consequent on ceasing to have juries in such inquiries."
That is taking a very optimistic view of how few additional inquiries a sheriff will have to make if they are mandated. My noble friend Lord Selkirk has made it quite clear that there will be many more inquiries, which also means many more sheriffs and all that goes with them. So I believe that the Government are perhaps being deliberately optimistic about the additional cost that will be incurred if this measure passes as it is now.
4.17 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: I return yet again to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and repeat the reasoning behind the Government's determination to extend mandatory public inquiries. The present position is that a public inquiry must be held under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895 into accidental deaths of people engaged in any industrial employment or occupation; in effect, factory workers, agricultural workers and, generally, manual workers or people tending machinery. Deaths of people working in offices, shops, hospitals and schools would not normally give rise

41
to an inquiry under the 1895 Act, as I indicated on Second Reading.
The effect of this Bill is to extend the mandatory requirement to hold an inquiry into deaths resulting from accidents in any employment or occupation—not merely in an industrial employment or occupation. The reasons for this extension are that it appears that the law should be equally concerned with the safety of the whole workforce, and that developments such as the greater use of office machinery have increased the risks of non-industrial employment. So it is in an attempt to be fair to all of the work force, to those who are self-employed as well as to those who are employees, that the Bill is extended in this mandatory fashion. I cannot hold out hope at this point that the Government will change their mind, nor that they will consult yet again with the STUC, for I have to say that the Government have had extensive consultations with that body and they have accepted the representations which it put to them.
At this stage I can say in reply to the point which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the Government will look again at the provision to see whether it is possible to deal with cases where criminal proceedings have already taken place by an alteration that would be deemed to be suitable both to this side of the House and to the noble Lord. I can give an undertaking to consult on that point.
May I briefly mention the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and advise him that consideration has been given to the effect of having mandatory inquiries into all fatal accidents at work. So far as can be estimated, the resulting increase in the number of inquiries will be in the region of 33 per cent. The Government are satisfied that given the saving of time and money consequent upon doing away with juries—which is something that we are all agreed about—this increase can be accommodated without any significant increase in expenditure or manpower.
Lord BALERNO: My argument is that, if inquiries are mandatory, the Government have grossly underestimated the number of inquiries that will have to be held.
Lord KIRKHILL: At this stage only time will prove whether or not that assertion is valid.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Of course, the Government should be fair to the whole of the work force but they should also be fair to everybody else. May I ask the noble Lord whether the Government will consider taking out road accidents. It seems to me to be quite absurd that road accidents should be dealt with in a totally different way according to who was driving the car. It is fair and reasonable that everybody should be treated in the same way. May I, therefore, ask the noble Lord at least to look at this matter again, if nothing else.
Lord KIRKHILL: I shall certainly look at that point.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful for the noble Lord's undertaking to look at this matter again, even though it is only a small part of what we were suggesting in the way of changes. When he does so—and I hope that he will give the matter very early consideration as I understand that the next stage of this Bill may be only a week or so away—I think that the noble Lord may find that other points would arise. We shall welcome Government Amendments and will try to make it as easy as possible for the noble Lord to make changes in the direction that we have suggested. This has been a debate which has enabled the whole subject of fatal accidents in the course of employment and occupation to be considered, and I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.23 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This is the Amendment which I indicated deals with the question of mandatory inquiries where a person has died in legal custody. If the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, agrees, it may be convenient if we discuss Amendment No. 8, which appears under my name but which is a Government Amendment, at the same time because Amendment No. 8 seeks to redraft most of the subsection which my Amendment seeks to take out. If the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, agrees

43
that we can discuss both, it will save time. No doubt he will move his Amendment after the debate, and again I say that I shall not press my Amendment.
It is our intention that the Government should persuade us why it should be necessary to have mandatory inquiries in all cases where a person has died in legal custody. At present I understand the position to be that an inquiry is obligatory only if a person dies in prison. During his earlier remarks the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, appeared to confirm that. Now the Government are to extend it to legal custody, even, so far as I can see from the wording of the subsection, if that means travelling in a black maria between one place and another. Can the noble Lord tell us whether there has been pressure from certain bodies for an extension of mandatory inquiries in this sense? For example, I could understand that in certain cases it would be right to have an inquiry, and this could be at the discretion of the Lord Advocate. If, for example, there was a suspicion that the police had not immediately handed over an injured, arrested person for urgent medical treatment and that later he died because he had not received that treatment, I assume that a Lord Advocate would order a fatal accident inquiry.
We should like to know whether there has been pressure to extend, as this Bill seeks to do, the mandatory system to every case where a person dies in legal custody. It has been mentioned to me that there could be cases where much distress and embarrassment to families would be caused by it being publicly determined at an inquiry that, for example, a young person who had died at a police station had died from an overdose of drugs and that he was a drug addict. That is the kind of case which would be inquired into, anyway, but which would not need a public inquiry and all the publicity in the newspapers that could occur. I mention that matter because it has been represented in relation to what is now proposed in this Bill, but my purpose is to probe and find out why the Government have sought, against the recommendations of the Grant Committee, to extend the mandatory system rather than to reduce it. I agree that the noble Lord mentioned earlier that in relation to legal custody it appears that the Grant Committee were not suggesting a reduction
44
but, so far as they were making any recommendation, that the situation should stay as it is.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: Could the noble Lord advise me whether detention in a criminal lunatic asylum is to be covered by this mandatory term? If so, anybody who was incarcerated for life and died a perfectly natural death would have to have a mandatory inquiry into his death.
Lord KIRKHILL: First may I assure the noble Baroness that there is no provision in this Bill for the situation which she has outlined. The provision relates to detention in
"a prison, remand centre, detention centre borstal institution, or young offenders institution, all within the meaning of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952."
If I may turn to the major point which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, regarding whether or not there had been pressure for the extension of mandatory inquiries to questions of all persons in legal custody, I can answer unequivocally, No, but for the reasons that I gave in my answer to Amendment No. 1 it seems only right that in this instance inquiries should be mandatory. May I also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that, if left undefined, the expression "a person is in legal custody" is too uncertain in its meaning and might he interpreted as including the normal custody of children by their parents.
We sought to define that in some measure. If I may respond to the major point made by the noble Lord in his brief remark, Amendment No. 8 which I shall move at the end of this debate replaces Clause 1 (4) with a new subsection which is intended to ensure that anyone who is required to be detained in, or subject to detention in, any of the penal institutions listed in that subsection but who is for any reason outside the institution at the time of his death, is considered to be in legal custody for the purposes of this Bill. This means that the death of any such person will give rise to a mandatory inquiry under the Bill.
Without such an Amendment, it appears that a mandatory inquiry would be required only into the deaths of people who were physically inside the institution or who were being taken there at the

45
time of death. For instance, the Amendment is designed to cover the case of a prisoner who at the time of his death is a member of a group working outside the prison under the supervision of prison officers. It will also cover the case of a person being taken from a penal institution to attend a court. In the Government's view, it is clearly desirable that inquiries should be mandatory into deaths occurring in such cases.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: It appears from what the noble Lord has said that he has not received representations from outside bodies on this matter, but this is something which the Government have decided to do as this legislation is passing through the House. I can only assume that it is some form of protection for the police and the authorities. I should not have thought it necessary. I should have thought that, if there was any kind of criticism, the Lord Advocate would have the discretion to order an inquiry. I think perhaps it is going further than is necessary to say that in every case there must be a fatal accident inquiry.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith, I should like to get the answer absolutely clear from the Minister. If he cannot reply immediately, no doubt he will give the answer later during the progress of this Bill. The equivalent of Broadmoor in Scotland is the State Hospital at Carstairs, and I think that is the institution to which my noble friend refers. It does not seem to be covered by the new definition in Amendment No. 8, but I should like to be sure that what the Minister said is absolutely clear; that is, that a person dying while detained, and sometimes detained against his will, at the State Hospital at Carstairs would not necessitate a mandatory fatal accident inquiry.
Lord KIRKHILL: I cannot respond at this stage to the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, but I will certainly let him know the official view on that question. With regard to his earlier points, I can only repeat that it is a balance of judgment and, in the view of the Government, for the reasons which I have explained it seems sensible to have a mandatory inquiry into the type of situation which I referred to.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am glad to have had the opportunity of this short debate on the point of legal custody. We will reserve our position and will consider carefully what has been said, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.35 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: We have already discussed this Amendment in the mini debate we have just concluded and I now formally ask your Lordships to accept Amendment No.8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("if") to end of line 26 and insert—

("(a) he is detained in, or is subject to detention in, a prison, remand centre, detention center, borstal institution, or young offenders institution, all within the meaning of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952; or

(b) he is detained in a police station, police cell, or other similar place; or

(c) he is being taken to any of the places specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection to be detained therein.").—(Lord kisrkhill.)

The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 8, manuscript Amendment No. 8A:
In paragraph (c) line 1 after ("to") insert ("or from").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move this Amendment in the form of a question. This is an Amendment to paragraph (c). I am adding words to indicate that he is being taken to or from any of the places specified in paragraph (a). To some extent that covers one or two of the points made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. For instance, if he is being taken to a hospital it might be a hospital outside the prison. He might be taken to the law courts, and I do not know whether the law courts can strictly be defined as a police station or a similar institution. I am merely asking whether this sort of situation is covered. I beg to move this manuscript Amendment as an Amendment to Amendment No. 8.
Lord KIRKHILL: As the noble and learned Earl will appreciate, we on this side of the Committee have hardly had sufficient time to give proper consideration to the point which he has just raised but if he is willing to withdraw the

47
Amendment I will undertake to look at this as a drafting Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Before my noble friend responds I must immediately say that I have not even seen this Amendment and was not aware of its existence as it is a manuscript Amendment separate from the Marshalled List. I mention this only because otherwise should not have failed to mention it in the earlier debate. I am sure it is a useful point and I hope the Government will look into it.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Perhaps I should just refer to the wording of the Amendment. I am saying that he is being taken "to or from" any of the places mentioned. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like to raise a point which arose at Second Reading. It is related to Clause 9, which has the effect of extending the fatal accident procedure to the Continental Shelf. The parts of Clause 1 are (1)(b) and (3)(a) and the questions relate to which procurator fiscal and which sheriff are to be the ones who initiate proceedings when an accident has occurred 100 or 200 miles out to sea.
At Second Reading I welcomed the extension of the new system to fatal accidents connected with winning oil and gas from the Continental Shelf. There has been a tragic toll of divers' lives in the past two years, but the Government ought to explain which authorities will be involved. Reading from the top of page 2, the Bill requires:
"…the procurator fiscal for the district with which the circumstances of the death appear to be most closely connected"
to investigate and apply to a sheriff for an inquiry. If I may put a possible case as an example, if a rig is operating 120 miles from the Shetland Isles and about120 miles also from the mainland, which is the relevant district for the purposes of this clause? Is this something which is to be left to the Lord Advocate to indicate at the time?
48
Again, if a death occurs from an accident while a structure is being towed round the West and North coasts of Scotland—for example from Loch Carron, which I mentioned at Question Time today, where the largest oil platform in the world is being constructed and which, in a little over a year, will have to be towed round the West and North coasts of Scotland—will these provisions apply if there is a fatal accident on or in connection with that structure off the West Coast?
The first point I have raised is which authority—the procurator fiscal or the sheriff responsible for Argyllshire or the West Coast—is to initiate action in that case? There is also a second point arising which was just touched on earlier by the Minister. Who decides whether it is an accident connected with the exploration of the seabed and exploitation—those are the words used in this Bill—or whether it is a normal maritime accident involving seagoing vessels, if a tug or several tugs are towing the structure which is part of a platform not yet installed in the North Sea? Does the structure, for example, have to be connected with the seabed and operating in exploration or exploitation? I have recognised that the noble Lord may need notice of this, and may wish to reply on Clause 9, or at some later stage. But there could be cases where it has to be decided whether it is an accident to be dealt with by the ordinary maritime laws as if it were an accident on board ship in the area concerned, or whether it is something directly related to the oil and gas operations on the Continental Shelf, which therefore will fall within this fatal accident procedure.
There is another example. There are supply boats which now are continually working to and from the rigs and platforms of our Continental Shelf. If there is an accident involving a supply boat beside a rig, somebody will have the difficult decision as to whether it was a fatal accident on a boat, which would come under existing legislation, or whether it was a fatal accident more related to the winning of gas and oil, which should therefore come under the new legislation. So without wishing to complicate, but seeking to clarify, I put these points at this stage.
Lord KIRKHILL: The points raised in this debate have been wide ranging.

49
Perhaps I might start by saying that the State Hospital, Carstairs, is not covered by the Bill—I make that point very clearly. As the noble Lord opposite will understand, he and I know a bit about the difficulties of oil extraction in these Northern waters. Some of the very points he has made this afternoon are now beginning to occur to us, and we intend to look into many of the points the noble Lord has raised. At this stage, we are not in a position to give him firm answers; nor, I should add, will I be in a position to give the noble Lord firm answers this afternoon. It is my intention to return to these points at a later stage in the Bill.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Criminal proceedings, compellability of witnesses and admissibility in other proceedings of evidence given at public inquiry]:
4.43 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deletes from the Bill the provision that transcripts of the evidence given at an inquiry and reports of the proceedings at an inquiry shall not be admissable in any judicial proceedings arising out of the same death. It is considered that it is unnecessary to make express provision for this in the Bill, as the admissibility of such evidence in other proceedings is sufficiently covered by the general law of evidence. The types of judicial proceedings which might arise out of the death are civil claims or criminal prosecutions. In both types of case transcripts of the evidence at the inquiry and reports of the proceedings at the inquiry would normally not be admissible as evidence of the circumstances of the death; firsthand evidence would always be required. There is only one exceptional case where a transcript of evidence given at an inquiry might be admissible in other judicial proceedings. This is where it is put to a witness in the subsequent proceedings that he made a different statement on a previous occasion. In this case evidence can be led, as permitted by the Evidence (Scotland) Act 1852, to show
50
the witness made that different statement. Where the previous statement was made in evidence at the inquiry, the official transcript of evidence might well be admissible as the best evidence that that statement was made. I think this is a Government Amendment which will commend itself to your Lordships.
The Earl of SELKIRK: May I ask whether in fact taking this out makes any difference or not? I appreciate the point the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has made, but even if this clause were in, statements in a preliminary inquiry could certainly be put to a witness in a judicial inquiry. All I am asking—and perhaps the noble Lord will tell me later, if necessary—is whether in fact taking this out actually alters in any way the manner in which evidence can be led in a judicial case.
Lord KIRKHILL: This is something to which I will respond at a later stage.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I would say only that I referred to this subsection on Second Reading, as the noble Lord said. I raised a query about it, but I was somewhat surprised when it appeared to lead to the Government taking out the subsection altogether. But we shall consider carefully what the noble Lord has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Sheriff's report etc.]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("On") and insert ("At").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that, depending on the circumstances of the inquiry, the sheriff may either issue his determination immediately on the conclusion of the inquiry or issue it after he has taken time for consideration.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 41, after ("thereon") insert ("or as soon as possible thereafter,").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that, depending on the circumstances of the inquiry, the sheriff may either issue

51
his determination immediately on the termination of the inquiry or issue it after he has taken time for consideration.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 41, leave out ("issue a report to the Lord Advocate") and insert ("make a determination").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is that at the conclusion of the inquiry, the sheriff instead of issuing a report to the Lord Advocate, will make a determination not addressed to any particular authority or person. This is more in accord with the position under the present legislation, whereby the verdicts of juries at inquiries are not addressed to any specific person. This change will not affect either the content of the sheriff's determination, or its availability to the general public, or to relevant Government Departments or public authorities.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.48 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 41, leave out ("issue a report to the Lord Advocate") and insert ("proceed forthwith, or in any event within a period of not more than thirty days, to pronounce in open court his findings in the form of a report").
The noble Lord said: I had a meeting with the right honourable friend of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. Following upon that, I saw the proposed Amendment of the Government, and so will not move my Amendment No. 13.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 14, at end insert—
(" ( ) The determination of the sheriff shall not be admissible in evidence or he founded on in any judicial proceedings, of whatever nature, arising out of the death or out of any accident from which the death resulted.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides that the determination of the sheriff at the conclusion of the inquiry setting out his findings regarding the death may not be used as evidence, or be founded upon in any judicial proceedings arising out of the death to which
52
the inquiry related, or in any judicial proceedings arising out of the accident which caused that death. Similar provision was made under Section 6 of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895 regarding the verdict returned by a jury in an inquiry under that Act.
The reason for making the sheriff's determination inadmissible in judicial proceedings is that the inquiry is essentially concerned with ascertaining the facts while civil and criminal proceedings, and most other judicial proceedings, are concerned with people's legal rights and duties. It might prejudice the discovery of the true facts of an inquiry if people considered that the results of the inquiry might affect their civil or criminal liability. It would equally be wrong if civil or criminal proceedings, where safeguards for individuals' rights are built into the procedure, could be prejudged as a result of findings in a completely different kind of procedure. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 16, after ("shall") insert ("send to the Lord Advocate a copy of the determination of the sheriff and").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is to require the sheriff clerk in every case to send a copy of the sheriff's determination to the Lord Advocate. This provision is consequential upon the earlier Amendment, No. 12, in terms of which the sheriff's determination is no longer to be issued direct by the sheriff to the Lord Advocate. It is clearly appropriate that the outcome of the inquiry should be made known to the Lord Advocate since the inquiry is initiated by a procurator fiscal responsible to the Lord Advocate. I beg to move.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Might I ask the noble Lord at what point is the determination of the sheriff to be made public?
Lord KIRKHILL: The sheriff will have a discretion in this regard, because he has to give a determination, and I think it would be usual for that to be made public quite quickly I do not knew of any particular time limit.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Am I to understand that there is no obligation to make it public at all?
Lord KIRKHILL: There is clearly an obligation to make the determination public and publicly known. I have indicated that earlier this afternoon.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 18, leave out from ("copy of") to end of paragraph (a) and insert—

("(i) the application made under section 1 of this Act;

(ii) the transcript of the evidence;

(iii) any report or documentary production used in the inquiry;

(iv) the determination of the sheriff, and").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. It has two purposes: first, to make it clear that it is only copies of the various documents listed in paragraph (a) of Clause 6(3) of the Bill which must be delivered to an authority requesting them in accordance with that paragraph. The present drafting of the paragraph might be interpreted as obliging the sheriff clerk to deliver a copy of the application made under Section 1 of the Act and the principals of the other documents listed. This would clearly be inappropriate, as the principals should, like the court records, be retained by the sheriff clerk. Secondly, it is to make it clear that it is only copies of documentary productions which must be delivered in terms of paragraph (a) of Clause 6(3). It would obviously be impracticable to deliver copies of productions which were not in documentary form. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 27, leave out from ("under") to end of line 30 and insert ("paragraph (i) of section 7(1) of this Act, any person—

(a) may obtain a copy of the determination of the sheriff;

(b) who was entitled by virtue of this Act to appear at the inquiry may, within such period as may be prescribed in rules made under paragraph (ii) of the said section 7(1), obtain a copy of the transcript of the evidence,

from the sheriff clerk."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes two alterations to subsection (4) of Clause 6. One of these is essentially a drafting alteration; the other is more substantial. The drafting alteration is intended to make it clear that persons obtaining copies of the transcript of the evidence from the sheriff clerk must pay such a fee as may be prescribed in rules made by the Lord Advocate under Clause 7(1)(i) of this Bill. At present, in terms of Section 5(5) of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895, fees are payable on obtaining transcripts of the evidence given at inquiries, so the charging of fees under this Bill merely continues the existing practice. It will also, of course, be necessary to amend Clause 7(1)(i) to provide for the fixing by rules of fees payable on obtaining transcripts of evidence. We are seeking to do this by Amendment No. 19, which follows.
The other and more substantial alteration made by this Amendment is to insert a provision in subsection (4) for a limit on the period of time within which transcripts of evidence may be obtained. This limit is to be prescribed by rules made under Clause 7 of the Bill. Section 38 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 at present provides in effect that transcripts of evidence at an inquiry under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895 or the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1906 need only be provided to persons who appeared or were entitled to appear at the inquiry if they apply to the sheriff for a transcript within one month of the close of the inquiry and the sheriff directs that the transcript be provided. This time limit would apply equally to inquiries under the present Bill, at least so far as it replaces the 1895 and 1906 Acts. As this is a consolidating Bill, however, it appears desirable to include in the Bill all relevant provisions, thus making it possible to repeal Section 38 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933.
This provision differs from the 1933 Act provision in that, instead of setting out in Statute the rigid limit of one month, it enables the limit to be prescribed by rules, and this limit may be altered from time to time. Such alteration might well be considered desirable

55
in the light of experience in operating the limit. As a consequence of this Amendment, a new paragraph will require to be inserted in Clause 7(1) providing for the fixing of a time limit by rules. Amendment No. 20, which will follow, seeks to do this. The consequential repeal of Section 38 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 is provided for in Amendment No. 26, which follows. I beg to move.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Might I ask the noble Lord, is it compulsory for a record in shorthand to be taken, or is it not? I understood from the 1933 Act that it was within the discretion of the sheriff whether or not a record should be taken. Does this make it obligatory, or it it still left within the discretion of the sheriff?
Lord KIRKHILL: I am not able to answer that at this moment. I shall inquire into the point and let the noble Earl know the outcome.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I think it was convenient that all the Government Amendments should be explained to us so that we could look at the clause in the light of the changes. I would draw attention in particular to paragraphs (c) and (d) at the top of page 5 which require the sheriff's report to contain, where relevant,
"the reasonable precautions, if any, whereby the death and any accident resulting in the death might have been avoided";
—and
"the defects, if any, in any system of working which contributed to the death or any accident resulting in the death".
Amendment No. 14, which has just been added by the Government—
Lord HOY: By the House.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: —by the House—moved by the Government and agreed to by the House—considerably affects this because it means that the determination of the sheriff shall not be admissible in evidence to be founded in any judicial proceedings. The point is that the sheriff, in carrying out the
56
duties in paragraphs (c) and (d), may find himself allocating blame in these particular findings.
I am sorry if I offended noble Lords. It is not even the House; it is the Committee.
Lord HOY: I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but it is not for the Government Front Bench to make decisions; it is for the House to make decisions.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Even that is not correct. The Committee has taken the decision, and the House will come to this later and may well do other things.
Reverting to the point I was making, the sheriff may well be allocating blame in making these findings in paragraphs (c) and (d). He is not required to find fault, but none the less he may do so if it is clear that an accident has occurred because somebody has been less than fully efficient, or careful, in the arrangements or in the supply or maintenance of equipment.
As I understand it, under existing legislation the sheriff is not required to find fault for fatal accidents but that he may; it can happen. Where it is clear that someone is to blame, the sheriff may not be able to deal with those points under (c) and (d) without clearly allocating the blame to some person or persons who would he named. Amendment No. 14, which the Committee has just made, means that the sheriff's finding cannot then be used as evidence in a subsequent criminal proceeding. All the relevant matters have to be gone into again. Therefore, that is some protection for the person who may have the blame allocated to him but who may be contesting it, because we may have a situation where a public report from a sheriff states that X and Y are to blame and then X and Y publicly, through the Press or other ways, state that they are not to blame. Presumably there are courses open to them. They have a remedy in the appropriate courts if they wish to prove their point. Alternatively, it is for the procurator fiscal or the Lord Advocate to decide whether further proceedings should be taken in any case arising from the fatal accident. I should like the Government to confirm that this

57
is the interpretation: that the sheriff does not have to allocate blame, but that he may none the less find himself doing so if he is in certain cases to carry out paragraphs (c) and (d).
There is a further point. In the past, the sheriff has been able to make recommendations. He is not required to, but if there is an accident involving some new procedure or new plant or equipment, then the sheriff is able to make a recommendation. This, of course, can be extremely useful. It could be the first authoritative proposal arising from an inquiry which, if acted upon, could prevent a repetition of that kind of accident. I would ask the noble Lord whether he can confirm that it is open to a sheriff in his report to make recommendations immediately in general, or in particular, as well as carrying out the tasks laid down in these paragraphs.
The Earl of SELKIRK: The noble Lord has raised an important point. In Amendment No. 14 it is said that,
"The determination of the sheriff shall not be admissible in evidence or be founded on…
In every case the determination of the sheriff will be public knowledge. It will be in the newspapers. It seems to me difficult to avoid a witness, either deliberately or otherwise, actually saying what the determination was. All this emphasises that if possible any proceedings should take place before the public inquiry. I do not know whether the noble Lord would consider that point.
Lord HOY: I do not want to delay my noble friend but I would make two points here. I also want to make explicitly clear that the decisions made in this place are made by this House, whether we are meeting as a Committee or as a House, and the decisions we made were reached by a Committee of this House, the House of Lords, and not by the Government. Irrespective of their political complexion, it is not for the Government to make the decision but for a Committee of this House. The Committee having made that decision, I find it a little difficult when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that the Government had made it. The Government did not make the decision; it was made by a Committee of the House.
58
It may well be that there may be some dispute as to whether the judgment of the sheriff, whatever that may be, will he taken into consideration. I regard the sheriffs in Scotland as being in a high position. When we had sherriff's substitute, I never regarded them very highly. I regarded the sheriffs as being very high but not the titular claim that they had, because I always regarded a sheriff as being a sheriff and not a sheriff's substitute. I was grateful when we altered the nomenclature to sheriff principal and sheriff, because that put them into the right position. If they are to make decisions and judgments, I have no doubt that they have to be taken into consideration. All I am saying is that when the Government conic to this House and introduce legislation it is for this House to approve or disapprove of that legislation; and when we approve it on the Committee stage I always find it a little difficult, having approved it unanimously, that some noble Lord gets up and asks for an explanation. The explanation ought to come during a Committee stage.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Would the noble Lord give way, as we are on Committee stage? I was not asking for an explanation of Amendment No. 14; I was asking for an explanation of two paragraphs which appear in the Bill but which arc much affected by the Amendment, and affected in a sense which I approve. I am sure that the Committee of the House would not expect me to make a long speech about something of which I approve. I am trying to save the time of the Committee.
Lord HOY: The noble Lord, at the beginning of his speech, said, "Having just passed Amendment 14". He then produced his argument following Amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 14 was passed by a Committee of this House. That having been done, I felt that the noble Lord on the Front Bench had done his job competently and well. All I am saying is that I am not objecting to what might follow from it, but I do not think it is right, having passed it without dissent, to raise it again on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like to deal with this point. I thought it would be convenient for this House and

59
the Committee too—I am perfectly ready to change my ways—when there were three or four Government Amendments to a clause, and the point I wished to raise was on another part of the clause but none the less affected, to have one debate at the end of the clause rather than have a debate on each individual Amendment. That was the purpose of my waiting until the end, and then to ask about a part of the existing clause which has not been changed by the Amendments but affected.
Lord KIRKHILL: I do not rise to intervene nor to add to this sophisticated Scottish altercation which has been taking place, but merely to bring your Lordships back to one or two points raised particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. On the point the noble Lord raised as to whether or not the sheriff can make recommendations in his findings, he can make recommendations so far as relevant to his findings under paragraphs (c) and (d). So far as the question as to whether or not the sheriff can indicate that a person is, or is not, at fault, I would refer your Lordships to the point I made at Second Reading on 9th December 1975 at column 840, when I said:
"The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, wanted to know the position of the sheriffs as it relates to their continuing or otherwise to make recommendations. Clause 6(1) repeats the provisions of Section 4(7) of the 1895 Act, setting out what the jury can deal with in its verdict, but excluding the provisions that appear in Section 4(7) empowering the jury to brine in a finding of fault."
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: May I deal with that point. The jury is being eliminated under this Bill, so references to the jury in the 1895 Act will no longer have any validity in the new legislation.
Lord KIRKHILL: It repeals that section of the 1895 Act.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: As a matter of courtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to whom perhaps I owe a little courtesy because I have been rather critical of some aspects of this measure, I rise to thank him for the trouble he and his right honourable and learned friend have taken over Clause 6, the Amendments to which follow a meeting which a number of those interested in the matter had with his right honourable and learned
60
friend. I wish to express my appreciation for the speed and efficiency with which these Amendments have been brought forward.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for being able to withdraw his Amendments apparently as a result of a meeting he had with the Government and which must have led to part of these Amendments to Clause 6 which have been made to the Bill. I would encourage the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, to have further meetings with the Government, perhaps in respect of Clause 1. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has made some changes which I think are satisfactory. I am not sure that he has been able to answer completely my question about the sheriff finding fault and the position that would then result, but perhaps he will have an opportunity at a later stage to say more about that.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Rules]:
5.12 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved manuscript Amendment No. 18A:
Page 6, line 6, leave out ("to solicitors").
The noble Earl said: Under Clause 7 the Lord Advocate may by rules provide for a variety of things, one of which in subsection (1)(h) has regard to
…the payment of fees to solicitors and expenses to witnesses and havers."
I wonder whether it is necessary for him to lay down fees for solicitors. This is already controlled, I believe, by the Lord President and by the Commission on Payments. Is it necessary, therefore, for this also to be under the control of the Lord Advocate? Surely the existing controls are sufficient to meet any point that may arise. Is there any advantage in creating an additional control over the fees of solicitors? I ask this question because this provision seems to be redundant.
Lord KIRKHILL: Before I reply to the question asked by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Selkirk, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for his generous remarks to me. May I also assure him that the Government are always prepared to meet him at any time

61
on points as they arise on this Bill. Perhaps I should at the same time confirm that on Clause 1 the Government remain implacable.
Coming to the Amendment, of course the Government have not had much time to consider it. At this stage we think that the Amendment would leave it to the solicitors themselves to regulate the fees they charge their clients for representing them at a public inquiry, and while we have no reason to believe that solicitors will act with anything less than their customary sense of public spirit, it is considered that the Lord Advocate, in carrying out his responsibility for the supervision of all matters relating to the procedure of these inquiries, should have this power. The Amendment was handed in only today, and if the noble and learned Earl will agree to withdraw it then I can assure him that the Government will look into the matter. I cannot go beyond that, but I can give him that assurance.
The Earl of SELKIRK: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord KIRKH1LL Lord KIRKH1LL moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("report of the sheriff relating to the inquiry") and insert ("determination of the sheriff or a copy of the transcript of the evidence").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 18, which amended Clause 6(4), to make it clear that a person who obtains from the sheriff clerk a copy of the transcript of evidence given at an inquiry must pay a fee to be prescribed by rules made under paragraph (i) of Clause 7(1). This Amendment modifies paragraph (i) of Clause 7(1) to include a power to prescribe such a fee. The Amendment also deletes from paragraph (i) of Clause 7(1) the words "relating to the inquiry", which words are unnecessary. The Amendment also substitutes "determination of the sheriff" for "report of the sheriff" in consequence of Amendment No. 12.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, which is consequential on Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) as to the period within which a person entitled may obtain a copy of the transcript of the evidence at the inquiry.")—[Lord Kirkhill.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Application to Continental Shelf]:
5.17 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 25, leave out ("or accident").
The noble Earl said: I am glad that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has redrafted this provision because it has not been easy to understand and I would have asked certain questions about its meaning. I am at this stage merely asking whether the words "or accident" are really necessary. The line in the clause reads:
"For the purposes of this Act a death of accident which has occurred…".
This measure is concerned exclusively with death; it is not concerned with accidents. If the word "accident" means anything in this context, it must refer to something rather wider than "fatal accident." If it does refer to something wider, then I should like to know what it is. If, on the other hand, it refers merely to a fatal accident, then these words are unnecessary. I am therefore asking why these words appear; if they are not necessary, they should be deleted.
Lord KIRKH1LL: This clause relates to providing for mandatory inquiries into fatal accidents at work. Paragraph (i) of Clause 1(1)(a) as read with Clause 1(2), provided that the accident as well as the death must have occurred in Scotland. It was therefore necessary in Clause 9 to provide for accidents on the Continental Shelf to be treated as having occurred in Scotland, and that is the only reply I can give at this time.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: If I understood my noble friend Lord Selkirk correctly, this is about the only occasion in the Bill—I have not been through it, but I think I am right—where the word

63
"accident" occurs without the word "fatal". An alternative Amendment might be to insert "fatal" before "accident", otherwise it makes it look as though this clause extends beyond fatal accidents and affects accidents on the Continental Shelf which have not caused death. It is not just a matter of drafting, but of whether the Government intend to have a mandatory inquiry into an accident which has occurred on the Continental Shelf but which has not caused death.
Lord KIRKHILL: Prior to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Selkirk, speaking, I had bowled along merrily imagining that this was a consequential Amendment harking back to an earlier Amendment which had been moved by a noble Lord opposite. However, if noble Lords feel that there is a point here that. should be looked at, I shall certainly look at it. I do not have the legal knowledge to express an opinion on this point and I would therefore prefer to communicate with the noble and learned Earl on the subject.
Lord HOY: I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I add a word on this point. Clearly, when one introduces the Continental Shelf into Scottish law one is widening the latter's scope very considerably. If my noble friend is saying that the provision in question is intended to look after the people on the Continental Shelf who are designated as working from Scotland, I can perfectly well understand that. Indeed, I am certain that neither the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, nor the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, nor any Member of this House would want to think that people who are engaged in a part of Scottish industry were left out of legislation. I am certain that I am expressing what they feel and that they will not disagree. All we are asking is that my noble friend should say that these people, who are Scottish employees whether they be on the Continental Shelf or elsewhere, will be covered.
We have recently had some little difficulty about people who were not covered because they were on the Continental Shelf, and we recently had a trade dispute with regard to people who had been dismissed from industry. A court decided that it had no right to rule because the
64
people in question were on the Continental Shelf. In other words, they did not come within Scottish jurisdiction. If my noble friend says that the position of such people is safeguarded, I am quite prepared to accept that; but it is a not unimportant point and one which might perhaps be looked at again if the Scottish Office has not already reached a decision. However, I hope that in the process of discussing what is not an entirely new matter, for oil development in Scotland is not a new phenomenon, the necessary provisions will have been decided upon. I should be grateful if my noble friend could then give a further explanation.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: We are of course in agreement on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has been detained elsewhere during part of today's debate or he would have heard me say at least twice this afternoon how much we welcomed the extension of this legislation to the Continental Shelf, for the kind of reason which he has given. At this point, we are simply seeking information because my noble friend Lord Selkirk has hit on a point—that is, that this is the first time that the word "accident" appears without being a "fatal accident". We simply wish to know whether or not it is the Government's intention to extend it further than fatal accidents. Once we know what is their intention we can consider whether this is something to encourage or discourage, but at this stage it is a question of simply ascertaining what is intended and of discovering whether this is only a piece of drafting which needs alteration because it is only fatal accidents which are supposed to be covered. That is the point which is being raised at this stage.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: Without wishing to join in the perhaps rather esoteric debate between the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, I venture as a lawyer to suggest—though I may be wrong—that the noble Earl is right and that in the context in which they appear the words "or accident" are otiose. Perhaps the answer would be that given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—that is, to call it a "fatal accident".
Lord KIRKHILL: I should first like to thank my noble friend Lord Hoy for

65
his helpful intervention, and to take this opportunity to restate that one of the principal aims of the Bill is to extend the legislation exactly as he has described. His intervention also gave me the opportunity to go back to page 1 of the Bill, where mention is made in Section 1(1)(a)(i) of the question of death which has resulted from an accident. I suppose that it is on that kind of consistent point that the matter is raised further on in the Bill in just the same way. However, if noble Lords are concerned about this question, I will give an undertaking to look into the matter.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am very happy with the explanation which the noble Lord has given, and I understand the object of this exercise. The simple way would be to use the words,
"a death arising from an accident",
which are exactly the words which the noble Lord quoted from Section 1. However, as the noble Lord has said he will look at the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.27 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert ("has occurred—

(a) in connection with the exploration of the sea bed or subsoil or the exploitation of their natural resources; and

(b) in that area, or any part of that area, in respect of which it is provided by Order in Council under section 3(2) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 that questions arising out of acts or omissions taking place therein shall be determined in accordance with the law in force in Scotland,

shall be taken to have occurred in Scotland.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the Amendment is not to alter the sense of the clause. Given their task, it was clear that the Parliamentary draftsmen had done what was required in the terms of the Bill as it stands, but those who are not Parliamentary draftsmen—and there are many of us—might misunderstand the expression,
"Scottish area of the Continental Shelf."
At the Second Reading of the Bill, I pointed out that internal arrangements had been made in the United Kingdom whereby a line was somewhat arbitrarily drawn between the part of the Continental
66
Shelf where Scots law would be applicable and that where English law would be applicable. That followed the international convention on the Continental Shelf which enabled the North Sea to be allocated from the point of view of exploring the seabed and extracting substances from it. That international agreement did not grant sovereignty to the countries concerned, either over the seas—which remained high seas beyond the territorial limits—or over the seabed. The countries have not claimed sovereignty over either but have merely recognised each other's rights to explore and extract minerals, hydrocarbons and substances from the seabed. There is therefore no question of United Kingdom sovereignty over the sea or the seabed over the Continental Shelf where this clause seeks to apply the fatal accident procedure.
Taking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy—and I know that he is extremely interested in these subjects—a certain amount of law applies to rigs and platforms, as do a certain number of procedures. I believe that the noble Lord was referring to a tribunal whose jurisdiction has not yet spread to the Continental Shelf. What is happening is that procedures are gradually being extended to the Continental Shelf. Here we are seeking to extend the fatal accident procedure. A certain amount of law applies to rigs, platforms and other structures which are not normal shops, boats or seagoing vessels. This applies beyond territorial waters and above the British sector of the Continental Shelf. I believe that the new wording proposed in the Amendment has the same effect as the Government's wording but avoids the dangers of misunderstanding. It does not give the impression that, as a country, we are claiming sovereignty over part of the Continental Shelf beyond the territorial seas. Certainly, much mischief could be caused by those who are not familiar with these matters if the expression were used out of context and it could be shown that it had appeared in recent legislation without its being pointed out that a very restricted scope of meaning was also included in the interpretation in the second paragraph. So I hope that this redrafting, which would remove possible misunderstandings, and even misrepresentation by those who wanted to cause mischief, will be removed by this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: I would recommend to your Lordships that the Amendment be accepted. It is a drafting Amendment which represents an improvement over the original drafting and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for putting it down.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: May I, not with great surprise but with gratitude, thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for accepting the Amendment. May I also take the opportunity of thanking him for dealing with some extremely complicated legal matters during the course of these Amendments. I am sure that they must have been very difficult to deal with, since the Bill comes from the Lord Advocate's Department. I thank the noble Lord fox what he has given us so far and for the matters which he has said he will look into.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation, transitional, citation, commencement and extent.]
Lord KIRKHILL: I beg to move Amendment No. 23. This is merely a drafting Amendment and makes no change of substance.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, leave out ("proceedings") and insert ("inquiry")—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 41, after ("Act 1906") insert ("or section 25(2) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment rectifies an omission in Clause 10(2), which provides that where an inquiry under existing legislation is in progress at the time of commencement of this Bill, the inquiry may be concluded under that legislation. At present, Clause 10(2) refers only to inquiries under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895 and the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1906. Therefore there is no reason why it should not also apply to inquiries under Section 25(2) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952. This Amendment therefore applies Clause 10(2) to such inquiries. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert—
(" (2A) Where, before the date appointed under subsection (4) below, a death has occurred in respect of which an inquiry is required to be held under the said Act of 1895 or the said section 25(2) but that inquiry has not been instituted before that appointed date, an inquiry shall take place, but shall be held under this Act as if the death was one in respect of which application is required to be made under section 1(1) of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: The new subsection inserted in Clause 10 by this Amendment is a transitional provision to cover the case where a death has occurred prior to the commencement of this Act in circumstances which give rise to a mandatory inquiry under the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1895. or the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952, but the inquiry has not yet been instituted before the commencement of this Act. The existing transitional provision in Clause 10(2) does not cover this case, as it applies only to the case where an inquiry has been instituted before the commencement of this Bill.
The new subsection (2A) therefore provides that where a death has occurred before the commencement of this Bill in circumstances giving rise to an inquiry under the 1895 or 1952 Acts, but the inquiry has not been instituted before the commencement of this Bill, the inquiry shall proceed. It is, however, to be conducted as an inquiry under this Bill, not as an inquiry under the 1895 ox 1952 Acts. It seems sensible that where an inquiry is begun only after this Bill comes into force, the provisions of this Bill should govern it—not those of repealed legislation. It must be stressed, however, that it is the 1895 and 1952 Acts which will determine whether an inquiry is to be held at all. It is merely the procedure which is being altered. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeais]:
Lord KIRKHILL: I beg to move Amendment No. 26. This Amendment provides for repeal of Section 38 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act

69
1933. It is consequential on Amendment No. 18 to Clause 6(4) of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 40, at end insert—

("1933 c. 41.

The Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933.

Section 38.")

—(Lord Kirkhill.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

EDUCATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
5.35 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 20th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Order is threefold. The most important proposals are to increase from 80 to 85 per cent. capital grants payable to certain voluntary schools in Northern Ireland, and to give the Northern Ireland Department of Education power to alter the school-leaving dates. At the same time the opportunity has been taken to include provision for other Amendments to the parent legislation—the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972—the need for which has arisen from experience in working the Order since it became effective on 1st October 1973. Some of these Amendments are to correct minor defects and others to clarify ambiguities.
I shall deal first with the proposed increase in capital grants to voluntary maintained schools and voluntary grammar schools. Maintained status was first introduced in 1968. The Education (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) of that year introduced important changes in the relationship between the voluntary primary, secondary and special schools and the local education authorities, now the Education and Library Boards. Maintained schools are managed by a Committee of at least six persons, of whom one-third are appointed by the Education and Library Board for the area. The
70
Board is responsible for the maintenance and provision of equipment of the schools and grant of 80 per cent. is paid by the Northern Ireland Department of Education in respect of approved expenditure on the provision or alteration of the premises. The success of these arrangements may be judged from the fact that of approximately 630 voluntary primary, secondary and special schools in Northern Ireland, 600 are now maintained schools. It is for these schools, and for those voluntary grammar schools which have a number of members on their governing bodies appointed by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, that provision is made in Article 13 of the draft Order to increase the capital grants on the provision or alteration of premises and, in the case of the grammar schools, on the provision of equipment.
This provision parallels the provision of Sections 3 and 5 of the Education Act 1975 which increased the rate of grant payable on building work at aided and special agreement schools in England and Wales from 80 to 85 per cent. The increase in grant in England and Wales was introduced in the light of representations from the voluntary school authorities concerning the financial difficulties facing them. The factors which necessitated the increase in England and Wales—that is to say, increased building costs and high interest rates—equally affect voluntary school building in Northern Ireland. It is estimated that the cost of the increase will be approximately £200,000 in the current year.
The increased rate of grant will be payable only on projects on which work commenced on or after 6th November 1974. While the bodies consulted have welcomed the proposal, a number asked that the increase should apply to all work done after that date regardless of the date of starting the scheme, but this would mean that voluntary schools in Northern Ireland would be in a more favourable position than are the aided and special agreement schools in England and Wales under the Education Act 1975. I think the House will agree that it would be wrong to make more favourable proposals for Northern Ireland than those which are already effective in England and Wales.
The second main purpose of the draft Order is to give the Department of

71
Education power to alter the school leaving dates. Article 36 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 provides for two dates in the year on which pupils are treated as reaching the upper limit of compulsory school age and therefore free to leave school if they wish: first, pupils whose 16th birthdays fall between the 1st September and the 31st January may leave school at the end of the spring term following; and secondly, those whose 16th birthdays fall between the 1st February and the 31st August may leave at the end of the summer term. The present leaving dates in Northern Ireland are the same as those in England and Wales. A Bill to bring forward the present summer term leaving date in England and Wales from the end of the term to the Friday before the Spring Bank Holiday was presented in the House on the 11th December last. It is hoped to make the change this year. This change would mean that pupils whose 16th birthdays fall between 1st February and 31st August in any year would be free to leave school on that Friday.
Since the school-leaving age was raised to 16 in 1972, some pupils who in earlier years could have left school on finishing the certificate examinations are no longer free to do so, though it is in fact impracticable to seek to enforce continued attendance for the brief period between the examinations and the end of the term. The raising of the age has also meant that pupils who do not take these examinations and who previously would have left school at 15 are now required to remain at school over the period when many of their fellow pupils arc taking examinations and when normal school work is affected. Both these instances of unwilling children being kept on for the short period involved seem to us bad and unnecessary. While in Northern Ireland the problem is less serious than in England and Wales in that the summer term ends some three weeks earlier, consultations indicate there is general support for bringing the leaving date in Northern Ireland forward to the Spring Bank Holiday. Article 4 of the draft Order empowers the Department of Education to make the necessary amendment to the 1972 Order by means of an order which, under the temporary provisions for Northern Ireland legislation, would be
72
subject to annulment by Resolution of either House at Westminster.
I now turn to the remaining provisions of the Order. Your Lordships will appreciate that once the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which runs to 127 Articles and 16 Schedules, came into operation, it was to be expected that a number of modifications would be seen to be necessary. The proposed amendments are of a minor, in some cases technical, nature, correcting flaws and clarifying ambiguities. None involves major shifts of policy, and I do not think it is necessary to mention each provision at this stage, but I shall be glad to deal with any queries which may arise in the course of the debate when I come to reply. My Lords, I commend the Order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 20th November, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge.)
5.43 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this Order, which the noble Lord has explained, makes necessary additions to the principal Order of 1972, and on those grounds I support it. I should particularly like to support Article 4, about which the noble Lord spoke, which gives power to amend the school-leaving age. I agree with the noble Lord that, since the raising of the school-leaving age, it has become clear that one of the problems is that after pupils have taken the certificate of secondary education, and possibly in the case of some pupils who have taken the general certificate of education, many of them would like to leave school, and I accent that this power may he used to deal with that problem. I think it is worth remarking that Northern Ireland, unlike the rest of Great Britain, made the provision when the raising of the school-leaving age was put into effect that, if a pupil was entered for an apprenticeship course, he or she could spend the final year of compulsory education out of school and on their apprenticeship training. But, so far as I know, this was the only exception allowed for throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I welcome the fact that the power taken under Article 4 of this Order

73
will have the effect that the noble Lord explained.
There are two questions I should like to ask. Article 7deals with maintenance grants for pupils. I wonder whether the noble Lord has with him any figures for expenditure on maintenance grants and, in particular, for the average level of grant given to a pupil. Far be it from me to encourage the increase in public expenditure at this present, very difficult time, but I recall that when maintenance grants in England and Wales have been discussed the criticism has every often been raised that, really, if a grant is to be given to a pupil it ought to be worth while, and that the general level of grants in England and Wales, certainly a few years ago, seemed to be pitched rather low. I wonder whether the noble Lord has any figures about these grants in Northern Ireland.
Under Article 10 there is power to make payments to the chairmen of the education and library boards. May I ask the noble Lord whether this is a power to pay a salary, or is it a power to remunerate chairmen for the expenses of the duties which they discharge specifically as chairmen. Either way, I imagine that this arises from the considerable expenditure of time and effort which is required from education and library board chairmen, and I am glad to have this opportunity to be able to recognise that that is the fact. My Lords, I do not want to ask any questions about the voluntary schools. This is, as the noble Lord explained, in line with legislation for Great Britain which was passed last year. I think it is right and I support the fact that the Government are not making it effective if the work has not been started after the due date.
Finally—I shall not speak on the other two Orders, so perhaps the noble Lord would bear with me for a moment—may I say one word about part of this Order to which the noble Lord did not allude; namely, the interchange of teachers with teachers from outside Northern Ireland, which is dealt with under Article 9. When I read the Order I felt that, in principle, this was something which is most desirable, and I hope that every possible effort is going to continue to be made by the Northern Ireland Department of Education to continue with these interchanges. In these difficult times
74
Members of this House may say, "Surely, this is a one-way traffic". My Lords, this is not so.
About two years ago a former President of the National Union of Teachers approached the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, offered his services and went to teach in County Tyrone. He had considerable difficulty in accomplishing this at all because he was retired and he did not fall within the ambit of the interchange scheme. When one considers that that man—I think he was 67 years old—exchanged retirement in the South of England for the disruption of moving both himself and his wife, together with the hazards which he could reasonably expect his new life would bring, I have always thought that his decision can only reinforce some faith in human nature. On the occasion of taking the first Northern Ireland Order for the year 1976, perhaps this is no had thing to remember.
5.48 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reception of this Order. He gave me notice of one or two questions, which consequently I am able to answer. Taking them article by article, I am very grateful for his support of Article 4. I think it is important, and I think it will ease the running of schools in this rather awkward period between 15 and 16. As regards Article 7, the maintenance grants, the total expenditure in 1975–76 on the existing clothing schemes is expected to be of the order of £400,000. The average level of assistance in an individual case is probably in the region of £15—as the noble Lord suggested, not very high. It is extremely difficult to be precise about this because the existing scheme provides for the reimbursement of the cost of items as determined by the education and library boards. This would be subject to some variation between schools and areas. Expenditure arising from the provisions of this article is expected to be in the region of £20,000 per year.
On Article 9, the interchange of teachers, I am glad the noble Lord noticed this. We shall certainly persevere in this. We think it is important. Not very much use is made of the facility, but we are anxious that more should be made. As

75
regards Article 10—the payment of chairmen of education and library boards—all members of an education and library board, including the chairman, arc entitled to claim travelling, subsistance and attendance allowances. The rates payable are those applicable generally to local government service in Northern Ireland, and these, in turn, arc based on rates applying in England and Wales. In addition, the chairman of an education and library board is paid an honorarium of £1,000 per year. In determining the level of the honorarium, the Department of Education took into account the other allowances which were available. If the noble Lord is interested. the attendance allowances are £5 up to four hours and £10 over four hours in any period of 24 hours. I think that answers the noble Lord's questions. I am grateful for his support and I commend the Order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INSURANCE COMPANIES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE rose to move, That the draft Insurance Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 7th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I call deal with this Order rather more briefly. Its purpose is to consolidate, with certain very limited exceptions, the law in Northern Ireland on insurance companies. The present legislation on the subject is contained in the Insurance Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 and the Insurance Companies Amendment Act 1973. Similar consolidating legislation was approved by this House last year in relation to the law in Great Britain' on insurance companies and the present Order follows as closely as possible the form and wording of the Great Britain enactment. This Order will greatly simplify matters for the many insurance companies carrying on business in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and generally the consolidation will be of help to all those involved with insurance company law. Accordingly I commend the Order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Insurance Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 7th November, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNSOLICITED GOODS AND SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
5.52 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE rose to move, That the draft Unsolicited Goods and Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 2nd December, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be of interest to your Lordships to be reminded of the history of this Order with which I was very much concerned. The equivalent legislation in Great Britain was first introduced as a Private Member's Bill at Westminster by Mr. Arthur Davidson. It was called the Inertia Selling Bill. Although I got this Bill as far as your Lordships' House, unfortunately it fell at the Dissolution of Parliament in 1970. A Bill with similar objectives was then introduced by Mr. Philip Good hart in November 1970.
A number of significant Amendments were made by your Lordships and these were all accepted in another place. The Bill subsequently became law as the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971. The purpose of the Order is to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that provided in Great Britain by that Act and the subsequent Unsolicited Goods and Services (Amendment) Act 1975. The Order will permit recipients of unsolicited goods to treat them as unconditional gifts if the sender does not recover the goods within 6 months or within 30 days of receiving a notice from the recipient. At present persons receiving unsolicited goods either have to return them at their own expense or retain them, taking care of them until they are collected by the sender. The Order provides that a sender of unsolicited goods who demands payment for such goods will be liable to a fine of up to £200. Moreover, if the sender threatens to bring legal proceedings against the recipient or to place him on a debtor's list he will be liable to a fine of up to £400.
The Order also deals with entries in trade directories. In future only persons placing an order in writing in a prescribed form will be liable for payment. A person pursuing payment, where these conditions have not been fulfilled, will be liable in summary conviction to a fine of up to £400 or on indictment to an unlimited fine. The scale of fines is justified because it has been estimated that some organisations may have made up to a quarter of a million pounds from operations of this kind.
The Order will enable regulations to be made requiring invoices and other documents used in trade directory transactions to display disclaimers which are so prominent that they cannot be overlooked. The Order also makes it an offence to send unsolicited books and magazines illustrating human sexual techniques or unsolicited advertising material for such publications—a practice which can cause considerable embarrassment. This type of offence will be punishable by a fine of up to £100 for a first offence and up to £400 for subsequent offences and prosecutions will only be undertaken by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland or with his consent. This Order will provide the Northern Ireland public with the protection already enjoyed by citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom, and deter unscrupulous operators from using Northern Ireland as a trading base for the Great Britain market.
Moved, That the draft Unsolicited Goods and Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 2nd December, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I support the purpose of this Order. Article 3 puts a stop to the sending of entirely unwanted goods which may leave the recipient undecided as to what course of action to take. The noble Lord, who was closely involved in the early legislation, must welcome the fact that the Government which he serves are doing this and I wish to make it clear that I, too, welcome it strongly. Article 5 refers to directory entries. I think that I am right in saying that this re-enacts in broad terms the Unsolicited Goods and Services Amendment Bill presented to this House by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn
78
last March which received general support as, I hope, will this Order today.
The noble Lord referred to the regulations which are needed by Articles 3 and 5. These regulations will be made under Article 6. Can the noble Lord give an assurance to the House that those regulations are going to be drafted with the utmost possible speed so that this Order can be implemented as soon as possible?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support. I cannot give an undertaking but I will press that this is the case. I have no doubt that it is everybody's intention and I will make it my business to see that the intention is carried out.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND DRAINAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
5.57 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill he now read a second time. In introducing this paving amendment Bill I should perhaps begin by explaining briefly what land drainage is about since the words do not really do justice to the importance of the subject. Local drainage is concerned first with the protection of both agricultural land and urban property from flooding, including inundation by the sea; and, second, with the improvement of agricultural land by the prevention of water logging and the control of the water table. The work carried out by drainage authorities covers a very wide range of activities. The largest project in hand at present is the construction of the Thames Barrier which will protect London from North Sea tidal surges. With its associated downstream defences the current estimated cost of this scheme is over £300 million. At the other end of the scale are the numerous small projects involving the widening and deepening of minor rural watercourses at a cost of a few hundred pounds.
In other words land drainage affects us all in both town and country since it is concerned with the control of our rivers and watercourses and with the maintenance of our defences against the sea. Like the Thames Barrier or the sea defences along the East coast, which

79
have recently been put to the test, some of the work carried out by drainage authorities is designed as a protection against the occasional flood or high tide, but in other areas such as the Fens, the pumps must be kept going regularly to take the water away from rich agricultural land which would otherwise be inundated. Land drainage is therefore vital to the life of the community, and statutory powers have been given to drainage bodies to carry out drainage works by a series of enactments over the past five centuries. So this Bill is concerned with a very important subject.
Noble Lords will have noted that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill begins with the words:
"This Bill paves the way for a land drainage consolidation. It amends a number of Acts concerned with land drainage. The amendments clarify various matters and remove various anomalies and impediments to consolidation".
This sums up the reason for introducing this Bill. Its purpose is to prepare the way for the long overdue consolidation of the Land Drainage Acts which will be achieved by the Consolidation Bill which I introduced in the House earlier today on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is therefore very much a lawyers' Bill and I am very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who is a distinguished lawyer particularly in this field, will be taking it for the Opposition. It makes no significant changes in the present legislation. For this reason I will not detain the House at this stage with a detailed explanation of its contents, but will confine my remarks to a brief outline of its main provisions.
The first point I should make clear is that this Bill is concerned only with legislation affecting England and Wales. Land Drainage in Scotland is dealt with by separate legislation which is not affected by the amendments contained in the Bill. Clause 1 is concerned only with definitions. Clauses 2 and 3 both relate to the meaning of "annual value" and "rateable value" for the purposes of various provisions of the Land Drainage Acts 1930 and 1961. The problem here is that under the 1930 Act the annual value of property was related to the Schedule A assessment, but the 1961 Act
80
changed this to the rateable value in relation to urban property, whilst leaving agricultural land and buildings on the old annual value basis. Because rateable values were so much higher than Schedule A values, the Act provided a formula by which the rateable values should be adjusted in order to maintain parity between agricultural and urban property. Unfortunately, the Act confined this adjustment to the provisions concerned with the levying of drainage rates and did not extend it to cover other matters in which the annual value of land plays an important part—such as the voting rights of ratepayers, eligibility to stand for election to a drainage board or the qualifications needed to appeal against a drainage board's decision. The purpose of these clauses is to correct that omission.
Clauses 4 and 5 are concerned with the rights of entry of internal drainage boards and local authorities in carrying out their land drainage functions. Legislation about rights of entry often—quite rightly —gives rise to discussion in this House, but in this case the Bill is concerned only to bring together and harmonise existing powers of internal drainage boards and to make them applicable to the land drainage functions of local authorities. Perhaps in the hope that my remarks will reach a wider audience. T ought to comment here that some local authorities appear to think that the Water Act 1973 transferred their powers and functions in relation to land drainage to Regional Water Authorities. This is not the case. District councils and county councils are still responsible for land drainage except in respect of main rivers or watercourses under the control of internal drainage boards.
Clause 6 removes doubts about the meaning of "agricultural buildings" for the purpose of drainage rates or drainage charges by declaring in effect that the term has the same meaning as for general rating purposes. Clause 7 is in a sense rather more than a paving amendment. What it does is to provide for the payment of compensation to employees of drainage authorities who lose their jobs or suffer a reduction in pay because of certain types of scheme or agreements under the Land Drainage Acts. For example, there is a provision in the 1930 Act which allows the Minister to approve

81
a scheme for the amalgamation of internal drainage districts. If such a scheme is made it could mean that a clerk who was previously employed in one of the districts would be made redundant. Under this clause the drainage authority will be given powers to pay him compensation. However, this is not a new provision. It replaces a similar provision in the 1930 Act, which no longer has any effect because it covers only employees who were in office before the 1930 Act took effect. But the clause goes somewhat further than the original provision in that it also covers redundancies arising as a result of agreements entered into between internal drainage boards and district councils under Section 25 of the 1961 Act.
Clause 8 and Schedule 1 deal with fines for certain offences under the Land Drainage Acts. These provisions remove inconsistencies between the provision of the Acts and increase the maximum fines to levels currently applying for similar offences under other legislation. Clause 9 and Schedule 2 make a large number of minor amendments to land drainage enactments, many of them purely legal in character intended to remove anomalies and inconsistencies and technical impediments to consolidation.
I hope that this brief summary of the main provisions of the Bill will have demonstrated that it contains nothing controversial or new. Many of the amendments would not in themselves justify new legislation; they are nut forward solely as a prerequisite to the consolidation of the Land Drainage Acts. As such I hope that they will be accepted by the House. Indeed, in the light of the comments made by a number of noble Lords, —including the noble Baroness, Lady Elles—in our recent debate about the Renton Committee Report in which they expressed support for the Committee's recommendation about consolidation, I venture to hope that this step towards the consolidation of the Land Drainage Acts will be welcomed. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
6.9 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has not attracted a
82
greater clientele to take part in this debate. Certainly I hasten to applaud the Government's efforts whereby they have found Parliamentary time for the necessary legislation of the sort that we have just had described. I suppose that a number of us as practitioners have had from time to time to advise on some of the more obscure aspects of the Land Drainage Acts as they now stand; certainly I have had my share of this. This has become increasingly difficult as legislation is filed upon legislation, and there are all sorts of complicated amendments made to Schedules in Acts, inserting new subsections, and so on, so that nothing could be more desirable than the Consolidation Bill which was introduced earlier this afternoon. I am looking forward to seeing its text, and no doubt that will be available tomorrow.
The noble Lord has very properly said that land drainage is an important subject. I now live in a part of East Anglia where there is a good deal of land in the river valleys which lies below sea level. They are quite reasonable agricultural areas and they are protected solely by the works of the internal drainage boards from incursions by the sea. Indeed, those estuaries used in fact to be tidal waters with ships sailing on them no and down the rivers and all over what are now the green grass areas as well. But I do not think we are nearly as badly affected as those in the Fens and other parts of Lincolnshire. I remember at one time asking why it was that roads in the coastal area of Lincolnshire took a series of interminable right angled turns as they progressed on their way, making it impossible to drive at any reasonable speed at all. I was told that it was because in those parts the roads were infinitely less important than land drainage. Land drainage had priority. and the roads had to find their way across the ditches as best they might. The noble Lord is perfectly right in saying that this is an important subject, even if its prominence comes to the public attention only on occasions when we have disastrous floods—something which fortunately we have just very recently avoided.
Turning briefly to the contents of the Bill, there is something which has been omitted and I should like the noble Lord to help me about it. He mentioned the provisions of Clause 7. I wonder whether he has any idea of the likely numbers of

83
people who may lose their jobs by reorganisation. There must have been time by now for the new water authorities and their drainage committees to have begun to look at these matters. It may be that some indication is available of the numbers of people—clerks of boards, and so on—who may no longer have their jobs and who will be provided with compensation for their loss. I hope the number will not be large and that the compensation they receive will be as generous as possible in the present climate.
As to the fines in Schedule 1, it appears to me that they are up to the modern "tariff" which is imposed in current legislation, and I would ask the noble Lord whether he could confirm that this is indeed the case. In Schedule 2 there are four provisions which puzzle me slightly. They are in paragraphs 1, 3 6 and, I think, paragraph 38. It appears that new subsections which were inserted mainly in the 1930 Act, and in the case of paragraph 38 by the 1961 Act, by the Water Act 1973, are now being taken out again. It would seem strange that Parliament should have changed its mind so quickly within a matter of some two years, and I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us what will be the effect of the removal of these four subsections which were put into the earlier legislation only in 1973. I believe that some people are under the impression that this will mean a substantial change in the powers of local internal drainage boards and other local organisations. I very much hope that it will not and that this is a technical matter. If the noble Lord can give me any reassurance on this, I shall be very glad to have it.
Finally, I want to ask the noble Lord for a progress report upon one matter. There are two forms of levy made under the Land Drainage Acts, if I have the matter right. There are general drainage charges, which are imposed in areas where there is no internal drainage board and local authorities probably deal with matters which were mentioned by the noble Lord. But there are, in areas where the internal drainage boards have been appointed, assessments for drainage rates which are not dissimilar to ordinary rates, although not quite the same. For many years there has been a system whereby these rates have been assessed
84
by reference to the values put upon land under what used to be Schedule A. Schedule A was an income tax impost and it continued for a long while until it was finally abolished in 1962. There was meant to be a quinquennial revaluation. I believe that in some cases this had not happened for very many years indeed: in most places the last one happened in the 1930s. I believe there are a few exceptional cases where assessments were made in about 1946, but I hasten to say that the legislation requires that you should ignore those.
Therefore, for the main hart we are dealing with assessments which have been on the books and are the result of valuations made not later than the mid-1930s. This was done by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and, of course, many pieces of land did not have their own Schedule A assessment. We are now expected to continue with this system, and have been continuing with it, despite the general abolition of Schedule A for all other purposes. Under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1968, there are powers for internal drainage boards to bring up to date the situation where land conies to their attention which has no Schedule A assessment, or anything of that kind. They are required to do their best to distribute fairly the burden of the drainage rates in their area. So far as I can make out —I think they would probably agree—they are more or less devoid of any guidance on how to do this, except that they are supposed to assess what they think would have been the annual value of this land for the purposes of Schedule A in about 1935, if the facts were then as they are now. This, as time goes on, becomes an increasingly difficult thing to do. There will have been cases, I think, where internal drainage boards have had to use these powers, and the first question I should like to ask the noble Lord is: can he let us have a progress report as to how they have been getting on? Have they been able satisfactorily to work this antiquated and extraordinary system so as to produce at least some form of rough justice?
The second question is this: since nothing was done in the Water Act of 1973—I think this is right, because Schedule 5 deals with drainage charges but not with drainage rates—and

85
since nothing has been done so far to rectify this extraordinary anomaly, can the noble Lord tell us when some more up-to-date form of assessment of values for the purposes of drainage rates is likely to be introduced? I can appreciate that it may he very difficult to find another method. You cannot use rateable value for agricultural land, because that was derated in the late 1920sand so is not on the valuation list. Something else has to be put in its place. Can the noble Lord tell us how much longer internal drainage boards, and valuers who have to advise clients, farmers and people of that sort, will have to use this very out-of-date system?—because I can promise him that it is becoming increasingly difficult to operate and the law and the practice are becoming most obscure. I wish there had been something about that in this Bill, but I dare say it would have been too controversial and that is why we have not got it. At least the noble Lord now has the opportunity, perhaps for the first time for many years, to tell us how these things are working in practice. I hope that he will do so. As for this Bill, I very much welcome it and I hope that it will have a speedy passage through both Houses so that we can have the Consolidation Bill on the Statute Book and use it as quickly as possible.
6.19 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for the general welcome he has given to the Bill, and also for what he has said. I think he is fortunate in living in East Anglia. I was brought up there and was at school there during most of my youth. I have always retained a great affection for it. Of course, East Anglia is the part of this country that is really the most affected by this Bill. In fact, as the noble Viscount mentioned small estuaries, I remember very well those estuaries like Cley and Blakeney, and we were told at school that in Elizabethan times each of them, as fairly important ports, sent ships against the Armada. This gives some idea of the decline of that particular coastline and the importance to it of drainage.
In regard to Clause 7, the noble Viscount asked me how many will lose their jobs under any possible amalgamation. We hope that very few are likely to be affected. Many of the boards are
86
small and do not employ many staff. Often the work is done by local solicitors on a fee-paying basis. The noble Viscount also asked me whether, in our view, the fines are up to the modern tariff. We believe that they are and that they take account of the falling value of money. I may say that they have been determined in consultation with the Home Office and parallels can be found in other modern legislation.
The noble Viscount also raised an interesting point about paragraphs 1, 3, 6 and 38 of Schedule 2. I can understand the reason why the noble Viscount has asked for clarification of these provisions, and of related repeals in Schedule 3 relating to regional land drainage committees. The explanation is that under Section 19(1) of the Water Act 1973 water authorities are required to delegate their land drainage functions, except for certain financial matters, to regional land drainage committees—or RLDCs, as they are known.
At the time when the 1973 Act was drafted it was considered necessary to place beyond doubt the requirement that for certain of the land drainage functions a water authority must not submit proposals other than those approved by its RLDC, and that they must submit such proposals without modification. It is now considered that these obligations are implicit in Section 19 of the 1973 Act, and the express provisions referred to in paragraphs 1, 3 and 6 of Schedule 2 to this Bill are unnecessary, especially in the context of a consolidation Bill. I am very glad that the noble Viscount raised this point, because it gives me the opportunity to give an assurance that the omission of these provisions will in no way weaken or detract from the powers of regional land drainage committees.
The noble Viscount also raised the question of Schedule A and referred to paragraph 12 of Schedule 5 to the Water Act 1973. I agree with the noble Viscount that it is unsatisfactory for internal drainage boards to continue using the Schedule A assessments for agricultural land and buildings. As he said, the last general revaluation for Schedule A purposes was carried out as long ago as 1935. In the long term the only satisfactory solution would be a complete revaluation of the 3 million or so acres

87
of land included in internal drainage districts. In fact, the Ministry discussed this possibility with the Inland Revenue about three years ago, but at that time they were heavily committed to other revaluation work and they could see no possibility of taking on this task until 1979 or 1980. Soon after that discussion with the Inland Revenue the Layfield Committee on local government finance was set up—I believe by the previous Administration—andwe must clearly await their Report, which I am glad to say is expected shortly, before deciding on the next step. I can, however, give the House an assurance that we are well aware of the need for action to bring these values up to date, and that we shall take the first opportunity to do so as soon as decisions have been made on the Layfield Committee's Report.
In the meantime, drainage boards can make use of the powers available to them under Section 30 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. This gives them power to determine a new valuation for any land if, in their view, this is necessary to secure a fair distribution of the burden of drainage rates in their district. The Act also enables an owner or occupier of land to ask the board to make a new assessment. There are rights of appeal to the local valuation court and to the Lands Tribunal against decisions by a board. We know that at least one board has completely revalued all the land in its district, but for the most part we suspect that boards are content to operate on the old Schedule A assessment, as the noble Viscount and your Lordships know.
As I have said, the position is not satisfactory, and the Government do not think it is satisfactory any more than the noble Viscount does. But I am sure the House will appreciate that until decisions arc reached on the more general questions which are being considered by the Layfield Committee, particularly the question of the rating of agricultural land, we cannot take any steps to improve it. I hope that that reply has answered the various questions raised by the noble Viscount.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MALAYSIAN CAMPAIGN: POW PENSIONS
6.27 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY Lord GRIDLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the position of certain members of the Armed Forces who fought as volunteers in the Malaysian Campaign of 1941–45, became prisoners of war, and who now are unable to obtain disability pensions on the ground of ill health. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was in the sum of 1975 that I first became aware that ex-members of the Malayan Volunteer Forces who fought in the Far Eastern war of 1942 were at present, in cases of a breakdown in health due to captivity and war service, unable to sustain a claim to disability pension, so I decided to carry out some investigations into the situation. I am a Government trustee of the Far East (Prisoner of War and Internee) Fund, and my duties in that connection bring me into close contact with the National Federation of Far Eastern Prisoner of War Clubs and Associations, operating throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In making my inquiries, I have received a great deal of help from the officers of the Associations in various parts of the country—from doctors, welfare officers and so on. I should record that I am most grateful to all of them for the sympathetic advice and help which they have given me, and particularly to Harold Payne, their distinguished President—a former prisoner of war—for his encouragement and help at all times. I believe we both felt when we were undertaking this task that we were on a moral crusade and, so far as it was within our ability, we wanted to right a wrong and see that justice was done.
Before I come to individual cases to illustrate my comments, I think it would be appropriate if briefly I said something about the ex-Malayan volunteer and the part he played in the Far East war, in case that goes by default. I know Malaya fairly well, and for some years prior to the outbreak of war I was myself a member of the Volunteer Forces. But about one year before the Japanese attack I was taken out of those Forces and placed in reserved civilian duties.
Those duties meant that I was right up in the North of Malaya when hostilities

89
broke out. They also meant that for the whole of the attack I was just behind the front line—if you could call it a front line, for we were continually cut off when enemy units landed behind us. This continued for about five weeks. I was thus able, from the position I occupied, to see and know for myself the part played by selected members of the Malayan Volunteer Forces.
When, in desperation, we sent two capital ships up the sea coast of Malaya to stop the Japanese invasion early in the war—a desperate manoeuvre which was carried out by Admiral Sir Toni Philips who went down with his ship—we did not succeed, but the manoeuvre was justified at the time. While this was happening and when what Air Force we had was virtually destroyed, the Army lacked information of Japanese plans and intentions. It was at that stage that volunteers, in small parties and at risk to their lives, went off in small boats, infiltrated behind the Japanese lines, went into the jungle and came back with information. This information was necessary for the Command to find out what was the position about the disposition of the Japanese troops.
The Malayan Volunteers could do this better than anybody else. They spoke the language; they knew the people; they knew and were accustomed to the Malayan countryside. In civilian life they were tin miners, rubber planters and business executives. Some were members of the Overseas Colonial Service who spoke Chinese. It is a thrilling story and one day the full story will be told, but there is no time to do that now. In the event, all of us were captured. I went to Changi gaol and the others to various prisoner of war camps that had been established by the Japanese.
In order to explain the position I must describe briefly the procedure regarding claims to a disability pension. Members of the Armed Forces arc recruited under Royal Warrant. When disabled, they should lodge their claims in the United Kingdom, and so far as I am aware there is no difficulty whatsoever about this when claims are justified. That is not the case with the Malayan Volunteers. Malayan Volunteers were recruited and paid by the Singapore Government or, in the case of the Federation, by the Malayan Government. They must claim on the
90
overseas Government. I do not quarrel with this procedure. When Malaya and Singapore became independent it was reasonable to expect these Governments to accept responsibility for disability pensions. However, I consider it an injustice at present when these overseas Governments fail to meet the established, legitimate procedure for Malayan Volunteers making these claims. The United Kingdom Force, the Volunteer Force and men from the Commonwealth were all in the same boat and battle and eventually found themselves in the same prisoner of war camps.
If it is to be argued that the Malayan Volunteer was recruited for the defence of Malaya, Yes, my Lords, he was, but it did not turn out that way. In that war, the defence of Malaya was part of Allied war strategy—it was the defence of Australia—and the war in the Far East was an American commitment. In all of this the Malayan Volunteer was an integral part. So all were equal, and when it comes to the consideration of claims fox disability all must be treated equally and all must have an equal claim to such a pension. However, as I have indicated, this has not happened in the case of the Malayan Volunteer.
By way of illustrating the injustice and difficulties facing former Malayan Volunteers claiming disability pensions, I do not think I can do better than to quote facts which are in my possession and take the case of Captain Snell, formerly of the Straits Settlements Volunteer Force. He was considered to be such an able officer in the Volunteers that in 1939 he came to England from Singapore and was on a training attachment to the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry. When the Colonial Secretary discovered that he was in England he sent a personal letter to Captain Snell and instructed him not to join any unit in England but to hold himself in readiness to rejoin his unit in Singapore. In retrospect, how wise was the Colonial Secretary in the decision he took, for I have quoted to your Lordships the way in which the Volunteers were used in that campaign. His decision showed certain perspicacity.
On his return Captain Snell was Japanese attack, on Straits Settlements Volunteer Force, in anticipation of the Japanese attack, on Straits Settlement Volunteer Force rates of pay, and after

91
the war arrears of pay were made to him by the Army Pay Office in Manchester. During the Malayan war the Straits Settlements Volunteer Force was brigaded with the Manchesters and Gordons, Regular Army units, and they became known as the Second Malayan Infantry Brigade. In 1942 Captain Snell was in Changi prison where he suffered from typhus and black water fever. Later that year he was transferred to the notorious Burma-Siam railway where thousands of prisoners of war died. From 1944 to 1945 there was a further grave deterioration of his health and the diagnosis was myocarditis—heart blackouts—and malnutrition, and he had 41 malarial relapses.
In 1948, after recovering in England, Captain Snell was back in civilian employment in the Far East. He was transferred by his firm from Singapore to Colombo as it was considered that possibly in that climate he would be in a better position regarding his health, but in Colombo he suffered pneumonia. In 1950, because of ill-health, his firm transferred him to Hong Kong, but again he was ill there. His company's doctors diagnosed emphysema and, again, bronchitis. In 1950 he was awarded the Efficiency Medal in recognition of a minimum of 12 years' efficient service with the Volunteer Corps. I have that recommendation in my file, and I recognise, because I knew him well, the signature of the Colonial Secretary of Singapore. From 1957 to 1965 Captain Snell had pneumonia four times and was a patient in the Matilda Hospital, Hong Kong, where he had been transferred. There he was under the continuous care of four doctors, and I have their names. In 1970 he was ill again, and so I could go on.
In 1972, as his condition deteriorated further, Captain Snell, when claiming a disability pension, was admitted to Ward 17of the Far East Prisoner of War Unit, Sefton General Hospital, Liverpool, for investigation of his claim. The medical report was sent to Singapore claiming a disability pension through the Pensions Branch of the Department of Health and Social Security in the United Kingdom. In their letter they said that they could advise the Singapore Government only on the approximate disability pension which should be paid, but that they could not
92
influence any decision that the Singapore Government might make. The sequel to all this was that on 3rd June 1974 Captain Snell was paid a gratuity of £77 under paragraph 6 of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1941. While in Singapore, Captain Snell did not receive a disability pension. He was not a civilian and was not injured as a civilian. His claim was for a disability pension for combatant war service, as a prisoner of war on the notorious Burma-Siam railway and for the way that his suffering continued.
I have with me all the correspondence upon this matter. Of course, this injustice was taken up with the Department of Health and Social Security in this country. I have their correspondence. In short, their answer was that they could do nothing, and there the matter rests. It was taken up by the Singapore High Commission in London who, on 22nd April 1975, indicated that the matter was closed. No reason was ever given for the Singapore decision. At the moment at which I speak Captain Snell is living in the Isle of Man. He is 70 years old and can walk only a few yards with difficulty. He attends the clinic of the chest specialists at Nobles Hospital, Ramsey, Isle of Man. My Lords, will this country do him justice before it is too late?
Briefly, my second case is that of Lieutenant Corless of the Straits Settlements Volunteer Force. On the 14th July, 1975 the Department of Health and Social Security wrote that:
"The Singapore Government have agreed to take full responsibility for the awarding of war disablement pensions to ex-members of the Singapore Volunteer Corps and the Department would, if required, arrange for Lieutenant Corless to receive a tropical disease check-up."
They went on to say that when Singapore considered the claim they could then ask "us"—that is the Department of Health and Social Security—
"to arrange a medical boarding".
They then go on to say that they would advise on the entitlement to pension.
They also warned in their letter that they were quite unable to advise on the amount of that pension and what Lieutenant Corless might be able to expect. They then sent on the claim form, along with all the other evidence and this was sent to Singapore. On the 28th July

93
1975 a reply via the Singapore High Commission in London was received as follows:
"As Lieutenant Corless has not submitted his claim earlier it is regretted that his claim in respect of his war injury cannot be approved under Rule 4(a) of Gazette Supplement No. 115 dated 24th December 1952."
I have a copy of that ordinance in my file. The answer in effect was this: noclaim for a disability pension would be considered unless lodged in Singapore before the 1st April 1953, and we now have the extraordinary situation of the Department of Health and Social Security in the United Kingdom writing, on the 14th July 1975, that Singapore had agreed to take full responsibility for the award of disability pensions, whereas in effect Singapore, in legal terms, ceased to do this after the 1st April 1953.
With reference to paragraph 4 of Singapore Gazette Supplement No. 115 of 24th December 1952, I notice that it was the Governor in Council who enacted Rule 4(a), which in effect made it statutory that no claim for disability pensions would he considered after 1st April 1953. So this was done by the British civil administration in 1952and before the independence of Singapore in 1959. In effect, it was not the independent Government of Singapore—Mr. Lee Kuan Yew —who was responsible for this rule, though the independent Government is now using the Rule 4(a) provisions. As your Lordships will now understand, the rules were made under Section 5 of the Civil Liability Ordinance 1950 of Singapore during the British civil administration.
It seems to me to be wrong to have made it law that no disability pensions would be paid to men in Japanese captivity after 1st April 1953, or only eight years after the cessation of hostilities in 1945. I say that for on 11th September 1975 a doctor who has had considerable experience in the medical examination and reporting on former prisoners of war wrote to me as follows:
"One of the features of captivity under the Japanese has been the long-term effects. Not only have these been so well demonstrated by continuity of follow-up of survivors by Roehampton Hospital but by similar studies carried out in Europe on concentration camp survivors (starvation and stress effects), and in a recent tribunal appeal claim in the United Kingdom Dr. J. A. Waters, former consultant to Roe-
94
hampton, made a special point of quoting both sets of studies."
So it would seem to me quite wrong to lay down a time limit within which severe disability might appear as a result of Japanese captivity. I respectfully ask Her Majesty's Government to take note of my points on this situation.
Also, with respect, I would draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the fact that no difficulty in securing disability pensions, where justified, is being experienced by former prisoners of war of the Hong Kong Defence Volunteer Forces now suffering disability in this country. The procedure is straightforward under a Hong Kong Ordinance, and as regards the point that it would be wrong to lay down time limits within which claims would be acceptable, as Singapore is doing or has done, Hong Kong has just approved a disability pension to a former Hong Kong Defence Volunteer involved in the Far East War of 1942 to 1945. So Hong Kong is applying no time limit.
I now briefly return to Lieutenant Corless where I left him. The Singapore Government having turned down his claim to a disability pension because he had not submitted his application before 1st April 1953, there was a dramatic turn in events. On 9th October in a letter received from the Department of Health and Social Security somebody, somewhere, seems to have shown some quality of mercy and taken a hand in the situation. I quote a part of the letter. They wrote:
"We too are concerned about this case and we find that now that the High Commission have given a decision we are able to consider it under special provisions which were introduced to deal with this kind of contingency. We shall therefore go ahead with urgent arrangements for Mr. Corless to be admitted to Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton. We will write to him direct about this."
On the face of it, it now seems possible that Lieutenant Corless may obtain a disability pension, but what are these "special provisions" on which nobody has any information? We must know. Will Her Majesty's Government pay the disability pension if they are satisfied that a disability pension is justified? Will Singapore? We must know the procedure. Does it mean that men must go through the time-wasting business of applying to the Singapore Government to have the claim turned down (as will happen), and

95
only then be eligible for consideration under the special provisions? I cannot emphasise too strongly that if a volunteer applies for a disability pension and he was 25 years old in 1945, and is a deserving case in 1975, he is now 55 years old. Many are older, and time is running out. For these men to struggle for such rights is unjustified and I submit it is quite intolerable.
Briefly, the final case concerns Mr. Woodroffe Hill. He has suffered an operation which I understand is considered to be due to his captivity in prisoner of war camps. His case is known to a Dr. Pavillard, who was also a prisoner of war and attended him when he was on the Burma-Siam railway. Dr. Pavillard himself has been able to obtain a disability pension. Mr. Woodroffe Hill has submitted his claim. It was turned down in Singapore on the ground that there is no record of Mr. Woodroffe Hill ever having been a volunteer in the forces overseas. So far as Singapore is concerned he just did not exist. There seems to be no doubt at all that Mr. Woodroffe Hill was a volunteer and he was a prisoner of war, and I know for a fact that at present he is suffering severely. The point I wish to emphasise is this. What is Mr. Woodroffe Hill to do? Nobody seems to know, nobody seems to be in a position to help. Does anybody care?
Finally, I would ask the Government to look into the cases I have mentioned, and to do this now as a matter of urgency. It seems that this should be done at ministerial level, and that firm policies and directives should be laid down which apply generally in situations of this kind. It is arguable, for the reasons I have given, that disability pensions for Far East Volunteers should be the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, and not of the overseas independent territories. After all, these men in Malaya were involved in a global war in defence of the whole of British interests.
My Lords, I am most grateful to the distinguished noble Lords who will follow me in this debate and who, in making their own valuable contributions, will probably do so with a much greater degree of expertise than I have brought to my speech. I have cut out emotion, but from my own experience, and from
96
what I have known of these years, about which I have not told, I feel deeply. I appeal for justice in this case. I ask Her Majesty's Government to give their sympathy to all the points I have raised. I ask them to carry out an inquiry, and to rectify some of these injustices by ministerial investigation.
6.51 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, asked me whether I would take an interest in this debate, "because of my connection with Malaya". I believe I am right in saying that the noble Lord started his career in the Malayan Civil Service when my namesake was Governor there. I only arrived there at the end of the war to take over, as my first job, the soldiery who were then guarding the Japanese prisoners of war at Changi gaol, of which I believe the noble Lord also has some experience. Afterwards, I went on to do the same job in Stanley Gaol in Hongkong.
My Lords, the subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, concerns me more directly because I am currently President of the Devon Branch of the Royal British Legion. In Devon, we have two of the largest associations of Far East Prisoners Of War. I think these are the strongest branches. One of my nearest neighbours and oldest friends is the man who, I think, medically speaking has more knowledge of what Far East prisoners of war had to suffer than anyone else in this country today. He began when, as a colonel in the Indian Medical Service, he was responsible for receiving back all the Indian Army prisoners of war from Japanese hands. He has since been for a long time connected with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and is part-author of the Roehampton Report, to which I shall refer later.
My Lords, before going on to the medical details, I would say that we cannot differentiate between a soldier who volunteered in Malaya and one who joined up here. When it comes to medical disabilities, all those who have served King and country should be treated equally, especially with regard to a pension. So far as FEPOWs are concerned, the present position in this country is that the seven-year rule has been relaxed, which is manifestly just. Three area

97
boards have been set up, in London, Liverpool and Exeter, to deal with their claims. A FEPOW writes to his regional pension officer, and if he claims a pension he will probably go to Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton. If the Department of Health and Social Security reject a man's claim, there can be an appeal to a pensions appeal tribunal. When the man's disability has become worse, he can be re-examined by, say, Queen Mary's Hospital, or one of the regional boards.
Although the proceedings work quite well, many claims are rejected because the Department's medical advisers arc far too conservative in appreciating the factor of stress during three and a half years imprisonment by the Japanese as a cause of psycho-neurosis and cardio-vascular degeneration. There are signs of improvement in the attitude of the Department, with the retirement of the old and the appointment of the new cardiologists.
The real trouble is that no overall survey of the health of the British FEPOWs—and this applies to volunteers as well, of course—has been carried out by the Pensions Department of the Department of Health and Social Security, although they subscribed to the limited Roehampton Survey. Also, no exact figure of mortality of FEPOWs during their captivity has been published. Of the supposed 40.000 men who worked on the Bangkok/Moulmein railway, 16,000 are said to have died. Apart from severe malnutrition, some were shot by their Japanese and Korean guards, many were tortured, and all suffered frequent and recurrent attacks of malaria and dysentry. Many got cholera, from which few survived. Infective hepatitis and worm infestation were common. Vitamin deficiencies such as riboflavine deficiency were universal, leading to sore mouth and scrotium; pellagra, dry beri-beri—peripheral neuritis due to aneurin or B1 deficiency—nutritional optic neuropathy, central blindness, nutritional spinal cord disease causing atascia and spasticity, or stiffness of the legs, and "happy feet", an intolerable tingling and burning of the feet, a liver disease due to protein deficiency often combined with infective hepatitis. Many prisoners had frank cirrhosis on release. Most of these have since died. The incidence of permanent psychological damage among survivors
98
is unknown, but my expert tells me that it very high.
Can the Government tell us the numbers who were transported to Japan? Many were drowned when their transports were sunk by American submarines. In Japan, malnutrition, cold and torture were common, but those who got there had no tropical diseases to contend with, and their mortality rate was lower. FEPOWs sent to the Pacific Islands suffered an even higher mortality rate than those on "the railway". Survivors from the Ambon Islands say that only 40 per cent. came out.
My Lords, the Roehampton Survey, referred to earlier, was very limited in its coverage, but gave the following percentages of diseases of those who were, so to speak, "on their books": hepatitis, 15.3 per cent.; malaria, 68 per cent.; hookworm, 17.8 per cent.; peptic ulcer, 10.6 per cent.; pulmonary tuberculosis, 4.8 per cent.; cardio-vascular symptoms, 12.8 per cent.; psychiatric sequelae, 40.6 per cent. Of those with organic neurological disease only those with beri-beri improved;all others deteriorated, or remained static in the follow-up of that Report. Of the liver-diseased ex-prisoners only those who had the disease mildly improved. There were not enough funds to follow up the cases of men with psychiatric symptoms—I am still referring to the Roehampton Report. This would have meant employing a full-time psychiatrist for a further two years.
Reports on the late sequelae to Far East imprisonment have come from the United States Veterans Association 1954 arid 1968; in 1975 from Richardson of Canada; in 1967 from Australia, and most remarkable and important of all, a monograph from Norway by A. LØnnum, published in 1969, which covers world literature on the health of prisoners of war and civil internees. These Reports all agree in their findings regarding the consequences of prolonged stress and imprisonment, especially in the Far East. They are, first, physical aging; many ex-prisoners are 10 years or more older than their actual age; secondly, they are psychological. There is a high incidence of what is known as the "KZ Syndrome". This shows itself in weakness, insomnia, difficulty in concentration,

99
social and family maladjustment, alcoholism and general inefficiency leading again to premature aging.
My Lords, this brings me to the conclusion I have been trying to point out to your Lordships. Far East prisoners of war must have special consideration in the way of disability pension, and I say this as an ex-European prisoner of war. Those young men who enlisted at 20 to 25 years of age are now 55 to 60 years old, and many of them arc physically and psychologically 10 years older or more. This group is developing senile degenerative cardio-vascular disorders well before their time. It is this group which is not receiving the sympathy they deserve, and their claims are far too often rejected by the pensions authorities of the Department of Health and Social Security.
To end with, I should like the Minister, if he can, to give us an assurance that his medical advisers have studied the Norwegian report I have referred to, and also the Third—that is, the 1975—US Veterans' Association Report on the subject, which strongly supports my view that many FEPOWs are unduly susceptible to premature cardio-vascular disease. Finally, my Lords, I end as I began: all who served the Crown, wherever they enlisted, must get the same pensions and compensation. There alone lies Justice.
7.2 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, Lord Gridley has, with much evidence, asked the Government to look again at these cases. I am rather horrified that after 35 years it should be necessary to put such an Unstarred Question to the Government. I was not there in 1941. I was in London. But I spent four years in Singapore, and I naturally got to know a little of some of the things that happened. The stories are horrifying. It is not for me to enlarge on them, and I will not do so this evening. But the fundamental points, to my mind, are twofold. First, the responsibility for the defence of Singapore and Malaya was British. We had that responsibility. Secondly, it was the Governor in Council who decided that he would not accept any further claims after 1952. I do not believe that decision would have been made or could have been made against, or indeed with
100
out the approval of, the Government in this country. On these two counts we carry a very heavy responsibility for those who enlisted.
This was perhaps one of the greatest tragedies of British arms at any time. It was a time when Sir Winston Churchill spoke of our greatest hour. It was certainly the greatest time of stress in which we have found ourselves. These men did their bit to try to break the tragedy of that moment. As Lord Gridley knows, they did a wonderful job of great hazard, without stinting themselves at all. We have had from Lord Gridley medical evidence of a formidable character. I do not think it is a matter of medical evidence wholly. Anyone who has known people who have endured what they did endure knows without any shadow of doubt that a legacy has been left. The seriousness of the legacy may well be a matter for medical adjudication, but that there has been a legacy is something which nobody can possibly deny. I shall only say this. There are not very many of them, and I ask the Government to look at these cases. These are people who, in a moment, without thought of the future, gave themselves and gave to the full.
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, my intervention in this debate is gratuitous. It will probably be less effective than any other and, for that reason, it should be brief. I describe it as gratuitous because I have no particular information to impart to the House of a technical nature, or of a detailed kind, and I was not myself in Malaya, and still less in a prisoner of war camp. That was, however, my war. I was four years in South-East Asia. I lived in the jungle. I knew what was going on. The Japanese were my enemy. The various terms, many of them produced by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, are all too familiar to me, as indeed are the case histories of all too many men who were my friends or became my friends, to whom such names as Changi and the Burma-Siam Railway are, sadly, to this day words they would prefer, as I have no doubt Lord Gridley would, to forget.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to something in the speech of my noble friend Lord Gridley. He ended by saying

101
that he had kept emotion out of his speech. I cannot believe that I am the only one struck by the enormous restraint with which he made that speech. He kept emotion out of it. But I find it impossible to believe that the whole thing did not have emotion as the driving force. If I am not wrong, then that emotion was chiefly composed of indignation, in which I share, In all this, I follow my noble friend Lord Selkirk, who has spoken with great power and in fact more emotion.
The noble Lord, Lord afford of Chudleigh, has produced a vast amount of highly distressing medical evidence. He has said that special consideration should be given to South-East Asia prisoners of war. Special consideration is what these men, if they require it still, should be entitled to receive and should receive. But it is not in fact what Lord Gridley has asked for in this Question. All he has asked for is common ordinary justice, and this is what they are not getting.
At this point I become, perhaps, naïve. Very well, there is sometimes no harm in that. I do not care very much about legalistic arguments about who signed an ordinance of this kind or that, or who was responsible for the well being of former prisoners of war, or former volunteers, whether or not prisoners in Malaya or Singapore. This appears to me to be the minutiae of the argument. The main argument is simply that these men were us, they were some of us. They fought the same war and they deserve the same treatment. If they cannot get it from the Government of Singapore or of Malaysia, then the responsibility comes firmly back on to Her Majesty's Government at home.
I hope—I believe I am justified in this hope, and I am fairly sure I have the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell—that, no matter what legalistic arguments there may be, ultimately if the Government at home find that they cannot get anybody else to pay these pensions they ought to pay them themselves. That is what the nation believes to be right and would wish to be done. For that reason I support wholeheartedly the request made by my noble friend Lord Gridley and others who support him that the Government should look very closely into this matter and see that justice in the end is done.
7.10 p.m.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I feel that I must begin by acknowledging what has been done for the FEPOWS during the years that followed the war, largely due to the campaigns organised by the Far Eastern Prisoners of War Association and their friends in both Houses, and to the gradual awareness of successive Governments of the very special needs of FEPOWS. I would say too that FEPOWS and their many friends are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, for raising this matter tonight. I said once before in this House that he is following his noble father's example, because the late Lord Gridley was always willing to press the claims of disabled ex-Servicemen when he was a Member of the House of Commons and when later he became a Lord.
My own interest in FEPOWS dates back to Southampton when I received them in those grim experiences just after the war, and to the time when Brigadier Sir John Smyth, V.C., and the late Lord Rowley Regis, and the present Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, the right honourable George Thomas, and others campaigned to get compensation from the Japanese for some of the cruelties they had inflicted on their prisoners of war. In the end we managed to secure about £5 million from the Japanese. Every FEPOW received a small sum, and we have something like £250,000 in a trust fund. One of the trustees is the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, and another of the trustees is my noble friend Lady Vickers, who is to speak tonight.
Ever since then, the FEPOW Association has pressed the special claims of FEPOWS, and especially for special hardships inside the FEPOW groups. They are wholeheartedly in support of the claim that the noble Lord is making tonight on behalf of one anomalous group of men who served Britain in the Far East. I do not need to remind your Lordships of the hardships endured by the FEPOWS. Every Government has recognised their special needs, and gradually special arrangements have been built up to deal with FEPOWS who suffer, as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has said, many years after their captivity. What we are asking tonight is that all FEPOWS should be treated in the same way, whether they are British Servicemen or whether they

103
are volunteers for Far Eastern military forces.
The group of men we are pleading for tonight were volunteers in the Straits Forces before the war. When the war came, I understand that they wanted to transfer to the British Army. They were advised not to do so, for what reason I do not know, but it was regarded as being in the British interest that they should not be transferred. Whatever the reason, the fact that they remained Hong Kong volunteers, or Malay volunteers, was not of their choosing. They fought alongside their comrades in arms: some suffered death, others were imprisoned, and, like the other FEPOWs, often suffered almost worse than death.
Now when a FEPOW claims for one of these disabilities which has emerged over the years, he goes before a special medical board. Three of them have been mentioned tonight. FEPOWs campaigned for that for years, and are delighted that they now have those special medical boards. If the board, which knows all about tropical diseases and prison conditions, recommends that they be given a disability award, they get it from our Government, unless they are volunteers from the old Malay or Straits Forces. In that case their claim is sent to the Far Eastern Government. The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, has found out, as FEPOW found out, that the claim that the medical board have recommended be paid is not paid. If we cannot persuade these Governments to make the payments for these disabilities when our own special board has recommended them, we ought to accept our own responsibility. We ought to treat these volunteers exactly as we treat the vast majority of FEPOWs. In fact, so grave is this injustice that I almost feel it is something that an Ombudsman might look into. Your Lordships will remember that years ago the Ombudsmen raised the case of British soldiers who were on the edge of a German concentration camp, and who, because they were not in it, were not entitled to be helped. Finally they were helped.
The FEPOWs, most of whose leaders are friends of mine, are solidly behind their colleagues in this claim. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers,
104
with her intimate knowledge, is enthusiastically in support, and will be saying so soon. It has been my privilege to work with all the ex-Servicemen's groups —with FEPOW, with Blesna, with Ajax, with the Royal British Legion—and I have found that while they have always pressed their broad general claims, each of these great ex-Service associations reaches out to the unfortunate odd creature caught up and not getting the benefits to which he is entitled. Every Legion branch has its welfare officer. I am proud tonight to be associated with such a distinguished group of speakers urging the Government to right what is really an injustice, and to give these ex-prisoners of war what the hulk of our Far Eastern prisoners of war are getting.
7.17 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I also am a trustee of this Fund spoken of so well by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley. I must say that I felt a little ashamed of myself, having been on the Trust for a considerable number of years, because I did not know about these people sooner. That is the reason I am very keen to support the Question, as the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, just said. I went out there in 1945 before the Far East war was finished. The object was to prepare camps in India for the reception of these men. Fortunately, a great number of them were able to come straight back by ship, so the camps were not very much used. But those who did use them were in a very sorry state, and most of them were people who had been volunteers because they had been living in Malaysia, as it is now, for so many years. A great many of them felt it worse because they had these disabilities even before they went in, in the way of malaria, dysentery, and so on. They were less able to resist these diseases, and some of them had not even a home in England to come to having lived out there for such a long time. This is one of the reasons why they need special consideration.
It was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that quite a lot of them came from the West Country. Nobody has mentioned the people who were in Sabah and Sarawak. A great number were in Sarawak because the White Rajah recruited all his men from Devon. They all had to be six foot, they

105
all had to have a certain calibre of education, they were all taught the local languages and they were invaluable in helping with the guerrilla tactics. When I went out with the Red Cross a lot of these men had not seen any women for a great number of years. I am not going to relate tonight the different things they said to me, but it was most moving to hear not about their illnesses, not about their complaints, but what they had done and how they had done it. Some of them even said that one of the things so marvellous was the wonderful sunsets and butterflies they saw which they had never seen before. That showed tremendous courage. I had been to Europe to help the prisoners of war there, but it was a great shock to see men in the condition they were in, some of them literally walking skeletons. As the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, said, he received some of them when they came back to Southampton in ships, and he will know the state many of them were in. It was not just a question of their physical state. In many cases their mental condition was disturbed, and frequently this persisted for a considerable time.
What was so remarkable about these men was the fact that, despite all they had gone through, a great many of them went back after six months to help what they considered to be their country or company. Many of them had been working in the mines and at rubber stations, and under their contracts of employment they had to join the volunteer force. I believe that this had something to do with insurance; most firms insisted that they had to join, so that while some of them may not have wished to do so, it was in their contracts that they had to join. When the guerrilla warfare started and they came back after six months their service was again invaluable. I wonder how many of these people are left now? We in the West Country have two reunions a year. The next one will take place in Torquay, and people come to them from all over the country, from Manchester, Scotland and elsewhere, and I am not speaking just about volunteers. These are remarkable people and are unlike, say, prisoners of war in Germany who seem not to hold reunions. It is obvious that the FEPOWs want to keep together in this way, and I recall a splendid evening last year when about 3,000 got together, FEPOWs and relatives, at the Festival Hall.
106
It should be remembered that those who were working on the estates and as volunteers were not just British people. There were quite a number of Australians, and I understand that they have been very much better served; in many more instances they have received disability pensions and it is clear that the Australians have been much better looked after. Some were also in Indonesia, having been taken by the Japanese to Indonesia, and regrettably a tremendous number of them died. What is so moving when one visits these countries is to see the thousands of graves—for example, after the Long March in Sabah and Sarawak—and this is particularly so in Sumatra. They died in large numbers and the graves are now being transferred to Singapore, which means that Singapore still has a share in looking after at any rate the bodies of the people who died in the Service, and they should feel grateful to them for what they did. If it had not been for the British Army—I appreciate that things did not go as well as we had hoped, the Japanese coming in and so on—things might have been even more different. These people volunteered and gave their full service to a country that was not theirs.
One can understand how people in Britain—say, during the air raids—volunteered to help save what was their own. Here we are talking about an extra bit of service because these men were doing it on behalf of a country which they had come to love. They served not for their personal benefit but for their mother country, Britain, and to help the local people. I therefore support this Question and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be able to give us some information. For example, can he say how many of these people are left and how many would require some sort of pension? Would a great sum of money be involved if these pensions were paid by Her Majesty's Government? I hope that if it is not possible to get the money from Singapore, the British Government will take some action. I am thinking not just of dates alone but of the fact that, as people arc rather against having been colonised, there may be something in the minds of the Singapore people. They may make this excuse in respect of the 1963 date, or they may not wish to offer disability pensions, or it may

107
be that it would be too costly if they gave them to these people, because of their own people who are fighting. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give an assurance that if he is not successful in getting the Singapore Government to think again, he will take action, with the British Government, to see whether something can be done by this country on their behalf.
7.25 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, this is the kind of issue which it is very fitting should be taken up in your Lordships' House, and I rise to say how much I admired the way in which my noble friend Lord Gridley raised the issue today and the way in which my noble friend and neighbour Lord Clifford of Chudleigh spoke from first-hand experience. I rise to speak briefly for only one reason, and that is the fact that two or three decades ago—I forget how long ago now—I was Minister of Pensions and had to grapple with these sort of issues. I had the good fortune to have as my Parliamentary Secretary Brigadier Sir John Smythe, V.C., whom the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King mentioned, and I was glad of his skilled and devoted assistance.
I remember well how in those days claims for pensions came up in great numbers. It was, of course, directly after the war and sometimes Ministry doctors would say, "We cannot find any immediate disability for this injury"; but, being sympathetic people, they nearly always went on to say, "However, we cannot be sure that in years to come, when these people get older, some deterioration in health will not take place." I learned very quickly to have a disbelief of anything like a cut-off date for applications. Gradually we learned that if justice was to be done it was wise to say, "We cannot trace a disability now, but if your health deteriorates later in life, come back and be examined again and it may be then that it will be possible to trace back your disability to something that happened many years earlier." Many disabilities of that kind show themselves only with the approach of old age.
In those days—I am speaking of 20 or 30 years ago—we were sometimes deeply concerned about the cost of administering these pensions because the numbers con-
108
cerned then were very large. Today, time having gone by, the number of individuals concerned is getting fewer year by year, and in some cases they must amount to a very small total indeed. I therefore ask the Minister, who we know to be a humane and sympathetic person, to tell us what he can and to consider these cases again. Cannot he find some way of ensuring that justice, with a little generosity, is done in cases where it can be shown that the disabilities from which they are now suffering were wholly or partly the result of their experience years ago? We should not be too legalistic over this—I speak as an old Treasury Minister—because the cost of doing what we would like to do for these people is surely, to use a modern expression, chicken feed. In the light of that, I support what my noble friends have said and I thank my noble friend Lord Gridley for having raised this issue in the way he did.
7.29 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, as a member of the post-war generation I rise with great hesitation to join my noble friends in seeking the Government's awareness of the position of certain members of the Armed Forces who fought as volunteers in the Malaysian Campaign. I joined the Army after the war, in 1949, so my knowledge of the predicament of these very gallant men and women who fought as volunteers is gained from records and other material. Such material includes Bridge Over the River Kwai which noble Lords will agree personifies the FEPOW in his particular disability and the noble part he played during his captivity.
I feel a very real sense of humility in speaking at all. Nevertheless, I should like to bear out what my noble friends have said and to draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, three courses of action which have been suggested. My noble friend Lord Selkirk suggested—and here we all join with him —recommending that Her Majesty's Government should accept responsibility for the volunteers. My noble friend Lady Vickers suggested that Her Majesty's Government should get the Singapore Government to think again. The noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, suggested that the Ombudsman should examine the particular circumstances in which these

109
volunteers find themselves as a very suitable way of looking into the matter.
I have served on a committee which was concerned with help to ex-Service war disabled and it is very clear to those who have been working in this field that the predicament of our forgotten allies in regard to pensions is particularly unfortunate. Those who know a little about the circumstances of the Polish and Czechoslovak forces and of others who fought alongside the allies during the war know full well that the Polish and Czechoslovak forces were able to enjoy pension rights because they were in receipt of payments under the Royal Warrant. The situation referred to by my noble friend Lord Amory is a legalistic one and surely it is not a moment to regard the niceties of this position. As he said, rather, we should look on it with generosity. The best estimate which we have been able to obtain—and here I speak advisedly—is that there are fewer than a thousand volunteers in this category. There are not many and their number is diminishing.
I do not believe that any of us could emphasise more clearly than has the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, the fact that these people are subject to advanced disabilities brought on by premature old age. Here is a case where some generosity by the present Government and, I hope, by future Governments will be very much borne in mind. My noble friend Lord Gridley has surely followed in the footsteps of a very old friend of all your Lordships, the late Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who throughout his Parliamentary career both in the other place and in this House supported the needs and urged the cases of the ex-Service man and woman.
7.33 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, let me say at the outset that the Government, and certainly the Department for which I speak, needed no conversion so far as this matter is concerned. We recognise that it is an unsatisfactory and, to some extent, an untidy situation, I say that because I want Members of your Lordships' House to realise that we are not unsympathetic. People reading tomorrow's Hansard may feel that the Department has shown a great deal of indifference and un interest and that we
110
are ogres. That is not true, as I hope to show your Lordships in a moment.
We are dealing with one particular group, unfortunate as that group is. I wish your Lordships to bear in mind that this is a situation which has not just arisen, nor is it something which has been created by the Government. It has been with us for a good many years and many may feel that it should be changed. Following this debate, I and my colleagues will certainly read what has been said and see whether it is possible to do something more than we arc doing at the moment. However, what I want to do now is to have the benefit of explaining the exact situation to those of your Lordships who are not aware of it because we are to a certain extent controlled by rules and regulations and by Acts of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, referred to the Malaysian peninsula and the Straits Settlements volunteers who served during the emergency period from 1939 to 1945. At the end of the Second World War the Crown Colony of the Straits Settlements, where the volunteers were raised, was dissolved. Its territories were then divided between the newly organised British Colonies of Malaya and Singapore. In 1963 the Federation of Malaysia which included Singapore, was founded. In 1965 Singapore left the Malaysian Federation and became a fully independent State.
Responsibility for the award and payment of war disablement pensions (or gratuities, if appropriate), for service in the locally recruited Straits Settlements Volunteers has always been vested in the successive Governments which have administered the territory. At no time— and I emphasise that—have the British Government been responsible for administration of these pensions awards, and the Malaysian and Singapore Governments have, since 1963 and 1965 respectively, accepted responsibility for all these awards, irrespective of the date from which the award was first made. This is the basis on which we have to work.
My Lords, you may wonder why, when these volunteers were first raised to defend this colony and fight alongside the troops of the Commonwealth, they were not regarded as part of the British Army. Under the Royal Warrant concerning pensions in respect of disablement or death due to service, however,

111
members of the Army are defined as "officers and soldiers whose units are based in the United Kingdom or the Isle of Man". Similar provisions apply to the Navy and Air Force. Clearly, my Lords, forces recruited overseas, even if they are British nationals, do not come within this definition of the Royal Warrant as it exists at the present moment. But this does not mean that we lose sight of these pensioners altogether. Many expatriates return to this country. We, sometimes act as agents for the Singapore Government in arranging for medical examinations. We may also be consulted about the appropriate assessment of disablement and, if requested, we advise on entitlement to pension which the volunteer would have had, had he been a member of the British Forces.
The position therefore, my Lords, in a nutshell, is that responsibility for pensions arising from service in the Armed Forces of overseas Governments, including former colonial Governments, is their responsibility alone at present. Where the State in whose forces the pensioner served no longer exists—as is the case with the former Straits Settlements which are divided between Malaysia and Singapore—responsibility lies with the successor State. It is, of course, important to establish where the locally recruited force was raised, and sometimes, after an interval of many years, this is not easy. The division of responsibility can thus be quite complex, particularly where claims for war disablement Pensions are first made some 30 years or more after service has ended. It is, therefore, my Lords, our practice to refer claims to the competent authorities if they do not fall within our ambit, and to assist in every way possible. We have done, and are doing, that quite successfully.
Some overseas Governments have provisions which are analogous to the Royal Warrant I have already referred to, while other Governments have local ordinances which cover civilian employees as well. Some overseas Governments continue to accept responsibility for war pensioners of former colonial territories, but do not follow Britain in increasing their pensions or do not up rate them at the same dates. In some cases, the rate of pension awarded under local legislation may be
112
higher than a British war pensioner would receive, but in other cases, where the overseas Government has not aligned their pensioners with British war pensioners, we usually have arrangements to supplement the pension; these arrangements are administered by the Ministry of Overseas Development.
I have been asked how many pensioners are involved. I simply do not know, but I will take the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. I know however that at present about 50 are receiving pensions from the Department at our levels and not at the levels they would normally have got. These arrangements are administered on behalf of the Ministry of Overseas Development and I wish to stress that the Department of Health and Social Security is only an agent for that Ministry. The matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, this evening is one that is controlled by the Ministry of Overseas Development. I think that we have discharged our agency work extraordinarily well, although I have much sympathy and understanding of the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, and other noble Lords regarding the lack of equity in this situation.
We advise Governments and we act as agents in certain respects, but ultimately the decision on whether there is to be a pension or an award is really a matter for those Governments. In this connection, I should add that we have wide experience of the problems of Far Eastern prisoners of war (FEPOWs.). The Black-pool War Pensions Office of the Department of Health and Social Security has set up a special unit of lay and medical staff who specialise in this work and who have a particular knowledge of the problems which have arisen while these gallant people were in captivity. Having said that, I wish to add on behalf of the Department how much we regretted reading of the death as recently as two or three days ago of Brigadier Sir Philip Toosey, who was the National Chairman of FEPOW. He was more than appreciative of the amount of time and effort that the Department of Health and Social Security has given to Far Eastern prisoners of war.
Your Lordships need no reminder that the award of a war pension depends on the causal connection between service

113
and disability. This is a factor which we have to take into account. I can assure your Lordships that a particularly sympathetic approach is adopted when considering claims from FEPOWs. I have made myself reasonably well familiar with regard to what goes on. Perhaps I ought not to say this—I do say some extraordinary things from time to time—but I am most impressed by the understanding and sympathy, as well as the drive and the desire on the part of those officials whom I know and with whom I have discussed this matter. They leave no stone unturned to get pensions for Far Eastern prisoners of war. They really make a determined, sincere and sustained effort to see that something is done.
It is now some 30 years since the end of the war, and many of these FEPOWs, like the rest of us, become subject to the ills of middle age or old age. Although we always try to give the benefit of any reasonable doubt, that is not to say that captivity automatically has long-term effects without regard to individual circumstances. As the situation is at present, we shall do our level best to see that Far Eastern prisoners of war who are entitled to a pension receive it, by some means or other. As I have said, the Royal Warrant does not apply to them. Many of your Lordships will remember that the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, which was passed some years ago, restricts compensation to war injuries and to war service injuries, and does not cover other conditions due to service. But it has enabled us in certain instances to use the provisions of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme to help some of the Far Eastern prisoners of war. We shall go on doing that as long as we can.
I do not know whether it would be wise for me at the Dispatch Box to deal with individual cases. The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, mentioned Captain Snell. We know not only of his existence, but of the circumstances. Here again I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, that my officials have worked very hard on this particular case, and they will continue to do so. I hope that within a very short time there will be some happier news so far as Captain Snell is concerned, but I am not in a position to hold out any promise. The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said that Captain Snell has been suffering
114
considerably since, I think, 1950. The noble Lord will know that I am not in any way taking him to task here, but I should say, in case there has been any misunderstanding, that Captain Snell did not make an application for a pension until 1972. Therefore, this matter has not gone on since the 1950s so far as we are concerned.
We also know about the other case—that of Mr. Corless—and I believe that here again the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, will say that we have done much to try to help this man. We have got him inpatient investigation for tropical diseases at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, and we even paid treatment allowances while he was receiving treatment. I realise that that is not the answer and we are trying to see what can be done with regard to a pension or a gratuity. I say "pension or gratuity", because I do not know what is to be the outcome.
Notwithstanding the fact that perhaps they are prevented from getting a pension which is probably their right from Malaysia or Singapore, we try to find ways and means to bring them into a particular scheme whereby they can get a pension or an award if we can establish, after a good deal of inquiry and medical evidence, that they are entitled to one.
I do not want to say anything more other than to repeat that we really are not unmindful of the inconvenience, the frustration, the despair and the depression that this situation must cause a number of Far Eastern prisoners of war. I can only say that we have helped quite a number of them. Whether we ought to take them over lock, stock and barrel and absorb them into our own pension scheme is a matter at which I think we shall have to look. This has been going on for a long time, and I can only say to the House that I shall certainly bring the suggestions which have been made tonight, and which I personally am glad have been made tonight, to the notice of my right honourable friend, to see whether we can do something along the lines which have been suggested.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he say whether many individual cases are excluded because of the decision made by the Governor in Council in Singapore in 1952?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot reply to that other than to say, from my own personal observations, that where we have been satisfied that there have been medical grounds we have tried to do something about a pension, even if it is to try to bring it within the framework of, as I have said, the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme.